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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm a little confused myself. We have a motion on the floor that I ruled out of order. You overturned my decision. Does that motion not survive? We just move on to debate that motion.

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

Therefore, the motion on which--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The motion you're putting on the floor is different from the original motion, in that you're using the term “immediately”, not to mention a few other words. My caution would be that I'm not happy with anything that suggests we'll limit debate. I don't want to limit debate, so either remove the term “immediately” and go back to the original motion...otherwise I'm concerned you're limiting debate. We're entering another motion before the first motion, which you ruled me to deal with.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? It's a matter of process. We're back to the first motion.

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

The first motion is the same as this, except that it didn't have the word “immediately”. You're the chair, aren't you, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's what I did say. The addition of the word “immediately” has two concerns--

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

That's okay, that's fine. If we remove the “immediately”, we go back to the original motion, which is what we want to discuss, which is what we want to debate as of now, and I'll accept that, sir. No problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There's no procedural change there. We're—

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

We're not trying to cover up anything. We're just trying to get the ball rolling, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Well, we're open for debate now on the original motion, so let's start the debate.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I have an amendment for the motion that's now before us, which reads as follows:

That the committee for Procedure and House affairs conduct a thorough study of the electoral financing and use of transfers of all parties and their respective local campaigns, including the 1997, 2000, 2004, and 2006 federal campaigns; further, that this committee report its findings to the House.

If I may be permitted to speak to my motion.... I see that the Liberals are already conducting discussions to block this amendment, because they don't want their finances to be put before public scrutiny. Of course, they have engaged in vast transfers between their national party and their local campaigns, more vast than has even been reported publicly, and those will be part of the revelations that I'm sure will be forthcoming if we proceed with the study that I propose.

A vote against this motion, Mr. Chair, would be a vote by parties to hide their books from the public, and anybody who casts such a vote should immediately explain what they have to hide.

We on this side of the House have already opened our books. In fact, we've done so proactively in taking Elections Canada to court. We want all of this in the public. That's why we're the ones who raised it. We in fact, by putting forward this motion, would be delighted—thrilled—to be one of the parties to bring forward its information and have its books scrutinized.

I would hope that every party in this room would be willing to put forward their books for examination and, if not, explain what they have to hide from the Canadian electorate.

Mr. Chair, this motion and the support of my Conservative colleagues for it makes the Conservative Party the only party that has thus far stated a willingness to have such an examination. That is exactly why we have pursued the matter in court and are willing to pursue it before a parliamentary committee.

It behooves the public now to turn its attention to the opposition and ascertain whether they are willing to do the same and open their books to the same scrutiny.

I look forward to hearing the responses of our colleagues across the room.

If I could add a word in French, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we have the opportunity of examining all of the parties' accounts. The Conservative Party is willing to make public all of the information on its practices and accounts. We hope that the other parties will show the same openness. Otherwise, they will have to explain why they don't want to discuss their finances. What are they hiding? We want to see all of the information. Once again, if the other parties are not willing to vote in favour of this amendment, this will be an indication that they have something to hide.

To clarify, Mr. Chair, this motion is presented in both English and French, and as an amendment it would replace the existing motion that we have before us.

I'll just repeat this, because I know that the clerk, who keeps records of these things, was working with the chair. This amendment would replace the existing motion that we have before us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to intervene and I look forward to having all-party support in the spirit of openness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Proulx, then Madam Redman.

Mr. Dewar, I have you on the list.

Monsieur Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I have to say will be very simple. I'm going to speak slowly and the interpreter will have no trouble providing Mr. Poilievre with the English version.

I want him to understand that we are discussing the practices that led Elections Canada to raise certain questions and to challenge the expense return of a single political party, which happens to be the Conservative Party of Canada. Neither the New Democratic Party nor the Bloc Québécois nor the Liberal Party of Canada are at issue. Elections Canada has certain questions about returns submitted by official agents, signed only by members of the Conservative Party of Canada with regard strictly to the 2006 election. This involves certain candidates, members and ministers as well as their official agents. Some of them are from outside the province of Quebec, but I would say that the majority are from Quebec.

If Mr. Poilievre is wondering why our request concerned only the election of 2006 and did not involve any other political parties than the Conservative Party of Canada, the reason is quite simple. The questions, scrutiny and allegations that have arisen outside of Elections Canada are aimed strictly at the Conservative Party of Canada.

I am thinking of former candidates such as Mr. Jean Landry in the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska, Mr. Liberato Martelli in the riding of Bourassa, Mr. Gary Caldwell in the riding of Compton—Stanstead and Ms. Anne-Julie Fortier, who ran in another riding. Without going into detail, I have in mind certain members, ministers, and even the parliamentary secretary of the Prime Minister, Ms. Boucher, who is targeted by these allegations.

And so we want to clear this matter up and shed light on these allegations. If they are well-founded, what was done was totally improper. But if they are not, these people have to have an opportunity to give their side of the story and to clear their name.

I believe I was concise and specific enough for Mr. Poilievre to understand that we do not accept the amendment he wants to introduce. He is on a witch hunt. He's talking about the 1997, 2004 and 2006 elections as well as about all of the parties, whereas these allegations concern only one party in one election. Unfortunately for Mr. Poilievre, that party is the Conservative Party of Canada.

I will for these reasons be voting against Mr. Poilievre's motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci, Mr. Proulx.

Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to make some of the same points as to why I cannot support the amendment. I guess it's what you would call a replacement motion, probably.

Certainly I've never heard of a court action being depicted in quite the way Mr. Poilievre has depicted it, as sort of clearing the air. These irregularities...which, again, are allegations and seem to be very widespread from former Conservative candidates that we read in the newspapers. We probably should hear right from those individuals, again, because these are allegations, and it is not a proven fact that they were advised not to speak to Elections Canada, not to seek clarification.

I do believe this is a matter that very much falls under the mandate of Procedure and House Affairs, but it is very specific in nature and, as such, does not need to be broadened to other parties who have not been named in this way or, indeed, other elections when clearly this is around the election of 2006 and the activities pertaining thereto.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Mr. Chair, I know that the results of the motion to in effect overturn your original ruling are not debatable. I will not be debating that, but I do want to make comments on a portion of your ruling because I think that really underscores a lot of the arguments being advanced by Mr. Poilievre.

I stand to be corrected, because I don't have a copy of your ruling in front of me, but I do recall your saying that in the opinion of the chair--and I think it was supported perhaps by an opinion by Mr. Walsh--that while you ruled the motion out of order, if the terms of reference were expanded or were to be more inclusive, then perhaps it could be considered to be in order.

I think that's exactly what Mr. Poilievre is suggesting here, that we have absolutely no problems with examining the books of our election financing over the last number of years, but in the spirit of cooperation, openness, and transparency, then should it not also be deemed reasonable to examine the issues and the books of the other political parties? It would seem to me that if, as Mr. Proulx was suggesting, there really is one party here that is being called into question, and then by extension if the other political parties are, as Mr. Proulx seems to be suggesting, squeaky clean, that should be a very simple fact to verify.

I do not see why any of the other political parties would oppose that. We are confident in our own party that any dealings we have had in election campaigns are certainly within the spirit and law of the Canada Elections Act, and we are willing to demonstrate that, both in a court of law and if necessary at this committee, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why the other parties might oppose that. It would seem to me to be a very simple fact to demonstrate before this committee, or before the ultimate court of public opinion, the Canadian electorate.

And if in fact the other political parties have done nothing contrary to the Canada Elections Act, they should be willing to be the first ones jumping up and down and saying, “Here are our books. We can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that we have complied fully with the Canada Elections Act.” Yet from what I'm hearing--and I'll wait to see what the other parties and other members of the committee have to say--it appears to me to be quite the contrary. The other members are saying, “No, you can't examine our books. Don't even think about examining our books. We only want to examine yours.”

There's fairness and there's fairness, and I would suggest that if in fact the other parties are sincere in their suspicions and want to get to the bottom of what they believe to be actions contrary to the Canada Elections Act, then they should be the first ones stating that they will offer their books as a proof of goodwill. I do not hear that, and I don't suspect that we will be hearing that, because as you mentioned in your ruling, Mr. Chair, this is clearly nothing more than a partisan exercise, in my opinion. I hope I'm proven wrong. I hope the other parties will voluntarily agree to the motion and support it, as brought forward by Mr. Poilievre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Just for clarification, it's an amendment to the original motion.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This reminds me of a teacher I had years ago who taught the art of rhetoric and the reframing of the debate. I think that's what we have in front of us.

Mr. Poilievre would have you believe that this is to be more open and to widen the scope. In fact, it's to shift the attention away from the Conservative Party. Just look at the Conservative Party's first response. Instead of being upfront and open, the party went to court. Why did they go to court? Well, let's take a look at that. I would think, and certainly in the ruling it was intimated.... It provides cover from being open and honest.

What's sad about that, Chair, is that this is the party that said they were going to be different; they were going to be open. I remember, at Bill C-2, with my colleague Mr. Martin, changing the Election Financing Act to take big money out of politics. We were hoping they would be different and consistent on this. That is not a partisan thing; it's not left-right. It's about being clean and clear about party financing and where the money is. I wonder what they knew about this whole scheme while we were debating transparency in politics. I really wonder.

So I can't fall into this trap. I will pledge, and our party will pledge, that we will open our books after we look at the investigation in front of us. We won't fall into the Conservative trap of making sure they're not looked at with scrutiny, with clarity, so we can follow up.

So I will not support the amendment, because I won't fall into this rhetorical trap of reframing the debate away from what needs to be done.

Listen, we remember Mr. Gomery's instructions to follow the money. That's what we're doing here, that's what we want to do here, and trying to cover oneself through a court action.... I would ask the Conservative Party to stand down from the court and allow us to look at it. If you have nothing to hide, then we can get on with the work, and Canadians can see that there is transparency,that there are clear rules for everyone to follow, and that this idea of spin-cycling things is not on. That's what Canadians want to see.

Chair, I pledge today that our party will open up our books after we investigate this party, and we will not fall into the trap of decoy. We will make sure that Canadians get answers about what happened in the recent election.

I guess we could go back to Sir John A. and investigate how many bottles of whiskey were being handed out, but that's not what Canadians are interested in. It's an interesting idea. We're talking about the last election, and it was this party that dined out for how long on cleaning up politics? We in the NDP have said that for a long time. We put forward amendments at Bill C-2 consistent with that.

If you would like to look at our books after we look at yours right now.... We did open our books, and apparently Elections Canada looked at yours as well and didn't like what they saw. That's what this issue is about. So please don't try to play decoy politics.

We can't support this amendment, and I think Canadians want us to get on with the job.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

Monsieur Guimond.

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

I am going to try to not drag out the debate. Indeed, the members of the committee and the other people who came here are wasting their time. This party promised to practise politics differently in the 2006 electoral campaign; so much for that.

Mr. Poilievre stated that if we defeat his amendment, it is because we have things to hide. I am not going to play “my dad is stronger than your dad”, nor “I can spit further than you can”; I have passed that age. These are childish games kids' arguments. I am not saying that is what I think of the member, but deep down inside, I think this is immaturity. Let's not play these games and let us try to show some maturity.

There is a motion before us. We can vote against it, but regarding your amendment, we are not going to go back in time indefinitely, as I said yesterday. My NDP colleague referred to John A. Macdonald from the beginning of our history. We are not going to talk about Sinclair Stevens, either. There are a lot of factors. This party promised to do politics differently so it should stop these dilatory tactics and techniques and we should get to the meat of the issue. That is what I am asking you to do in good faith and with good will. I would like to know whether we are going to lose another hour and three minutes here. If that is the case, let's get organized and waste our time in a joyful and enthusiastic way; let's have fun.

However, I must say that this committee is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. The next session is going to get off on the wrong foot. If you are looking for someone to rock the boat, trust me, I am your man. I am not making threats. And to prove that I am not making threats, I am going to go ahead and do that. When you promise to do something and you do not do it, but say things simply to provoke fear, that is a threat. But I am going to do what I say. I am telling you ahead of time, Mr. Chairman, you are going to find your next mandate difficult if you are reconfirmed as chair after the prorogation, if there is one. Indeed, the prorogation is not official yet, since we are sitting, and that may be what will save this government's bacon with regard to starting this week's debate. I call upon the good will and good faith of my colleagues. Personally I am going to vote against Mr. Poilievre's amendment because its purpose is to fundamentally alter the motion that is before us.

Allegations were been made, and Elections Canada refused to refund certain expenses. If my Conservative colleagues want us to study Mr. Poilievre's motion when we return—if the prorogation does not take place and if this study has already been undertaken—we will have no problem with that whatsoever. We the members of the Bloc Québécois have absolutely nothing to hide. If our colleagues want us to do that, we are quite willing. However, we are not going to obscure the issue as the Conservatives are trying to do, that would be the best way of losing our way. The issue gets broaded, the problem is obscured, and we are no longer focusing on the matter that brought us together here; we have been wasting our time for two days, quite precisely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

It seems that the idea of opening up their books has elicited a spectacularly emotional response and a very personal one, particularly from our friends in the Bloc. It is unfortunate to see that.

We already knew what the Liberals were going to do on this vote. We knew that the Liberals would not want their books opened. They would not want to have any examination of the way they financed their last campaigns. They're as open as brown envelopes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Poilievre, could you speak to me? That might help some of the disorder on the other side of the table.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

We knew that the Liberals would not want to open up their books for any kind of scrutiny, and we know why; we don't need to go into it at any length. But through our research over the last several weeks, we've actually determined that there are probably some reasons why the Bloc, perhaps even the NDP, would not want any examination of their electoral financing either. That research has been confirmed today through an attempt to cover their tracks on the part of both the NDP and the Bloc.

We can safely determine that the NDP and the Bloc have now been anointed the high priests of hypocrisy on the matter of accountability, because they are the ones who continue to preach high-minded practices of integrity--that they are as pure as the driven snow--but at the same time they want to cover up their electoral financing practices.

Again, no one is the least bit surprised that the Liberals would want to cover up their conduct. Their conduct has been the subject of criminal prosecution in courts of law, as well as a public inquiry that found them implicated in an elaborate kickback scheme. All of that would give us cause to question how they finance their campaigns, with respect to the transfers they've done.

But we thought that perhaps the Bloc and the NDP would have been in favour of some degree of openness. Once again, some of the research we've done suggested that they might not want that kind of scrutiny, but today we've confirmed the reasons.

And let me say one other thing. Mr. Guimond used the occasion to threaten you, Mr. Chair, that if we continued our drive to open up the books of the Bloc Québécois he would become very embittered and make your life very difficult. Those are the words that he threatened you with before this committee. So thou doth protest too much, mes amis au Bloc. It behooves the public now to turn their attention to the motives of all three opposition parties in concealing their electoral financing practices.

But let us put the opposition parties on notice ourselves. We do not intend to give up our drive to find out what's really going on in the electoral financing of their parties. Despite the fact that they are going to vote for a cover-up today, we will continue to move forward to make public any information we can find that's currently within our reach. We will continue to make the case—and we hope that observers on the sidelines will join us—that all parties should come forward.

I conclude by pointing out that the amendment I propose takes absolutely nothing away; it only offers more. We here are perfectly willing to have a thorough examination of our books. We are perfectly willing to invite the Chief Electoral Officer to come here and offer his opinion on how we have conducted our campaigns. We are perfectly willing to have our past candidates come before this committee and offer testimony. All of that is possible under the motion I've put forward. It also suggests that if any information should come forward in the next several weeks suggesting that there's need for scrutiny in other parties, they can simply do the same thing.

[An hon. member]

It sounds very easy.