Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 11th, 2007

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

It sounds very straightforward. Through all the arguments we've heard from the opposition parties, we haven't heard one single argument on how this motion would detract from their ability to conduct a thorough examination of our books.

How would this motion that I'm putting forward detract from their ability to conduct a thorough examination of the Conservative books? There is no answer to that question, because it would not. Our books would be on the table, our officials would answer questions, and we would be willing to hear from former candidates and the Chief Electoral Officer on our books. All we're asking is that every other party do exactly the same thing, and we can get started right now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, it's actually quite amusing to watch the Conservatives squirm; it's entertaining. It's almost as telling as the allegations themselves. As much as I like watching them squirm and try to delay and stonewall, I'd actually like to see this committee get some work done.

The books of all parties are open. In fact, that's what got the Conservatives into trouble. So I would recommend to my colleagues of the Conservative Party that they go and spend their time to look at every other party's books, and if they have allegations they can table them. The books are open.

But right now, we have business in front of this committee. We have a court procedure. We have allegations by Elections Canada. We have allegations by Conservative candidates. This is a very, very serious matter. We cannot go back to our constituents and pretend that this is not an important matter for us to look at. This is just an attempt by the Conservatives to delay, delay, delay, and covering up fits in nicely.

So they can try all they want, but I'd like us to call this matter to a vote, so we can vote on this amendment right now and move forward to the motion that was originally submitted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We can't call the question right now, because I still have speakers on my list. But your request is noted.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair. I have a couple of points.

Number one, I want to voice my appreciation to both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois for stating publicly at this committee that they would be willing to bring to this committee their books and discuss all of the election financing practices both of their parties have engaged in over the past number of years. Yet on the other hand, I find it astonishing that they say they won't do that right now, but just after they've had a chance to conduct their witch hunt of the Conservatives.

I'm suggesting, Mr. Chair, that in order to determine whether there have been any abnormalities you really need some standard of comparison. While there are guidelines and procedures under the Elections Act, we have seen from time to time that political parties work—in advertising terms—within what they believe to be the spirit of the Elections Act. You do so in different ways.

As an example, Chair, my understanding is that the Bloc Québécois really don't do much of their own fundraising. In other words, I think that in the last quarter they raised something like $30,000, but all of their individual campaigns are financed out of their central party. In their view, that's perfectly normal and perfectly legal. I'm suggesting, Chair, why don't we take a look at that in this committee?

I've yet to hear the Liberals, of course, say they would like to entertain a discussion of their own financing practices at this committee, but at least the Bloc and the NDP have done so.

So I'm saying, why not? It would not unduly delay the proceedings, because quite frankly, unless you have a standard of comparison, unless you have a frame of reference—that being all political parties—how can you determine whether anything the Conservatives have done in terms of election financing and election advertising is, in the opinion of this committee, untoward? You have to compare it with something. You need a frame of reference, and that's what we're suggesting right now.

Let's get all of the practices of all of the other parties on the table. We'll call witnesses. They can certainly suggest a list of witnesses from our party they'd wish to bring forward. I'm sure we will be able to present a list of witnesses from the Liberals and others that we'd like to bring forward. For example, I'd love to hear the Bloc Québécois explain why what they do is perfectly legal. They probably have a pretty good explanation. I'd like to hear it, because it seems to me they're doing something very similar to what they are alleging is illegal for us to have done.

We need a frame of reference, Chair.

Again, I think the opposition members' denying our having this fulsome discussion of all the practices of all the parties is, quite frankly, contradictory in its terms. They're saying they want openness and transparency and they want to get to the bottom of this; yet on the other hand, they're saying just don't examine our practices.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Poilievre's motion does not detract from the original motion; it enhances it. It allows Canadians out there, if they do have concerns or questions about the spending and advertising practices of individual parties, to.... Now is the time. We're not trying to stonewall the proceedings; we're saying let's move on, let's expand it, and let's get all of the parties' practices on the table. Let's examine them all.

If you choose to vote against this motion, in my view, all you are doing is saying this is confirmation. This is nothing more than a partisan exercise and is not intended to be a sincere effort to examine the practices that all parties have engaged in over the past number of years.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would simply suggest to my honourable friend that if he's looking for a standard, perhaps he might look at the laws of Elections Canada and compare his party—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's not a point of order, Madam Redman. Thank you very much, though, good try.

Mr. Reid is next, and then Mr. Preston.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Michel, for a friend like you...I just can't express my admiration for you. I could take some time and talk about that if you'd like, but I thought instead I'd address the substance of the issue here.

There were a number of objections I had to the initial wording of the motion. Everybody knows what those are, especially Michel. This amended motion, to a large degree, gets around this problem. It removes some of the highly partisan language. It removes the presupposition of guilt that was written into the original motion, and the presupposition that there are external allegations other than the ones being made by the four members who presented the motion in the first place.

I've made this point before. They refer quite dramatically to a systematic attempt to defraud Elections Canada as well as the Canadian taxpayer. I'm assuming this is rhetoric, that these are not separate actions, that in the act of defrauding Elections Canada, which would be a criminal matter, quite frankly—fraud is a criminal matter—therefore the Canadian taxpayer is also being defrauded. I'm assuming these aren't separate actions, but the wording is so sloppy, is so clearly written for the purpose of attracting media attention as opposed to actually dealing with getting at facts, that you get this kind of rhetoric written into it.

It didn't have to be done this way, even if they had wanted to simply examine the Conservative Party and make sure that they themselves were insulated from any analysis, which certainly, I think, seems to be the case. I think that's quite clear from the resistance we're seeing to having this go into the financing practices of other parties. The truth is that this makes a presupposition of guilt and it makes assertions that are factually untrue.

This is, I think, something that Mr. Poilievre's motion removes. You'll notice there is no assertion that anybody has done anything wrong, in the motion he presents. It says that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's hope it's a point of order, please, Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I feel that it is.

Mr. Reid keeps talking of assertion on our part. If you look at the wording of the letter from the four members, we're talking of allegations, Mr. Chair. I only want to make sure that Mr. Reid read the letter properly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I am going to suggest that's debate.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm sorry. I withdraw.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Also a very good try.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

If you did points of order in the right manner, Mr. Chairman, you could turn this into a question period, but actually, you know, Mr. Proulx has a point.

The assertion is made that allegations have been made. I went through the press clippings again today. Yesterday I had said in my point of order that I was unable to find any allegations that had been made of--let's be specific--systematic criminal actions. That's what's been said: “systematic”. That is to say, they are not merely occasional or random criminal acts, but systematic criminal acts. In this motion we are talking about, I assume, some web of criminal activity--a systematic attempt to defraud Elections Canada.

He's not saying that this is actually what he's saying; he's saying that somebody else is asserting it, so yesterday I spoke. I can't find anybody who's asserting it. I went through the clippings again from the media and I actually found something that may be kind of--sort of--such an assertion. This is someone other than the four people who made the request. If these allegations are proved true, it is election fraud and a gross breach of the public trust, but that assertion was also made by a Liberal MP, by Mr. LeBlanc.

Other than Liberal MPs and Mr. Guimond, nobody is suggesting that such allegations actually exist. What there is is a dispute as to an interpretation of the law between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada; very specifically, two court actions are under way right now. Neither of them is a criminal action. Neither of them deals with fraud. Neither of them deals with the kind of thing Judge Gomery was looking into, with envelopes of cash being delivered to Quebec ridings for the Liberal Party--I think there were 21 or 25 ridings. We're not talking about that. We're not talking about the stuff that Judge Gomery was unable to investigate because of the way Paul Martin had written his terms of reference, which was so as to exclude investigations of such criminal actions. We're not talking about this kind of thing; we're talking about a dispute between Mr. Mayrand's interpretation of the Elections Act, which is that certain kinds of transfers are not permitted, and ours. We say that the Elections Act does not forbid those transfers and that they are permissible.

There are two suits going on, because we're saying not only do we think he is wrong, but we also think Elections Canada owes a number of our election campaigns, and therefore riding associations, rebates that it's refusing to give. We are going to court and spending the money involved in doing that because we are making the calculation that we stand a good enough chance of winning that it's worth the expenses involved in fighting a government agency with bottomless pockets to get the rebates we are due.

Somehow the Liberals and Mr. Guimond have turned this into an accusation or an assertion on their part that there are allegations out there of widespread systematic criminal fraud going on.

This is preposterous, just preposterous. This is what Mr. Poilievre is attempting to deal with in his motion. Not only do we think there is nothing wrong and that it's entirely defensible to do what we did--to allow campaigns to transfer money back and forth--but we are also saying we're taking Elections Canada to court to make sure they recognize this right and pay us the rebates. The reason for expanding the investigation to look at other parties is to make the point that not only is it not wrong, let alone these ridiculous allegations about being criminally fraudulent, but it's also something we believe other parties are also doing. We think this is a standard financing practice. We're not saying it's wrong if the Liberals do it, because it is permitted under the Canada Elections Act.

We do think it's wrong, and I, for one, would go so far as to say that I think it is hypocrisy, to assert that what they do as a matter of course is not permissible when someone else does it; and that they can go on, suspend all the normal rules, and proceed to have a kangaroo court in a body unsuited to this kind of investigation—that would be our committee, which is simply not suited to engage in findings of fact, and you have the reasons why I think that's so in my point of order from yesterday—in a way that prejudges what the courts would deal with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, Mr. Reid.

Could I get some order in here? Mr. Reid was very quiet when other members were speaking, and I would expect other members to listen. Or how can you ever know what he said?

Mr. Reid, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

I should be careful about using strong language, but it seems to me there's a double standard going on here, a very distinct double standard. We simply want to demonstrate, as a way of getting out of this kangaroo court that they are trying to impose on us, that not only are these practices—and we'll deal with this in the courts, obviously—permissible, but they are used widely.

So let's be clear about this. If these practices are, as we assert and are asserting in court, not merely permissible but so permissible that we should be getting the rebates due to us for the money we spent in this manner, then what they're doing in their own financing is acceptable, and we have no reason to object to it. We just want to make the point that they're doing the same thing.

On the other hand, if, as they assert, this is systematic criminal fraud, then it's systematic criminal fraud that the Liberals do also—and we think the Bloc as well.

My colleague Pierre Poilievre was making the point in his earlier remarks: how exactly does a party like the Bloc Québécois get by when it does no fundraising? They raised about twice as much money in the Bloc Québécois in the last quarter as I raised in my own riding.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, those were actually my comments, not Mr. Poilievre's.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid stands corrected.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I think it's actually a point of debate, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, please continue.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

If, as they are saying, some mysterious person out there is alleging systematic attempts to defraud Elections Canada and the Canadian taxpayer, then they are systematic attempts to defraud Elections Canada and the Canadian taxpayer that they're engaging in themselves. The only way they can demonstrate otherwise is to agree to a motion that allows us to investigate the practices of all the parties. In no other way is it possible to do it.

But they don't want that. What they want is to narrow it down, claim that it's this outrageous abuse, that “only you guys do it, and we're only going to allow you to be investigated”, and then they can be as extreme as they want in their assertions. And if anybody opposes their assertions and presents reasoned arguments as to why this is an inappropriate forum and an inappropriate way of proceeding, an inappropriate timetable, they'll simply disregard any procedural considerations that are brought forward, overrule the chair, freeze debate, and rush through this McCarthyite hearing.

Mr. Chairman, this is just wrong. The way to stop it is by means of this motion, or a motion similar to it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Again, we're dealing with an amendment to the motion, and I suspect that's what you meant.

Mr. Preston is next, then Mr. Poilievre, then Mr. Lukiwski.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you to the committee, I might first suggest that you come up with some sort of ranking mechanism for those points of order so we'll know who's doing the better job. It might give us some sport to follow while we do this.

To be brief, because a lot has been covered, three other parties sitting around this table today have, first of all—and I think I really need to reinforce the points—overruled the ruling of the chair, a very well researched ruling of the chair, I might add, that you spent some great time doing and I think were very detailed in why the points of reference. And my friend Mr. Reid mentioned the terms or points of reference, because we've been through this before, where we find that if we just somehow narrow the points of reference to only what we want to find out, then good will come of it. How about opening the terms of reference to all that could be found, so that we can then do the right thing?

This committee's job is to review the legislation that involves elections and Elections Canada, and that's truly what we're trying to do here. Under the motion that Mr. Poilievre is trying to amend, we're talking about such a narrow point of reference that we can't discover reality. It's only about one thing, one party, one time, one place. This is unconscionable when this committee's job is to look at elections and elections financing.

I think we all came here with altruistic reasons to try to do the right thing. I think Mr. Poilievre's motion opens us back to that type of situation, and I can't find fault with it. I can find fault with why it's so narrow, on the other hand, but I can't find fault with saying, well, then let's open it up and look at what's real out there. So we'll do that.

Mr. Chair, since we're near the five-o'clock hour, I'm wondering if we could, for a moment, table and talk about a motion I put forward yesterday about the veil issue and what we are going to do about having Mr. Mayrand come forward to this committee in order to meet the terms of that motion, and that is to have a report ready by the end of this week. I think if we don't set that forward....

So I ask that we just have a quick discussion about how we could move forward with having Mr. Mayrand, since we are reaching the time when he may very well be going somewhere for dinner or something, and we would like to reach him, I would think, and ask him if he would like to come and visit us.

I will end on that point, and I beg the committee's indulgence on changing gears there for a second.