Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 13th, 2007

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

The member is making reference to a witness list for a study that he voted against.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Poilievre, let's debate.

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

We put forward a motion to have a study on these sorts of things. So there is no such witness list because there is no such study, which he voted against.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Proulx.

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

Thank you.

I thought when you ruled it was not a point of order the microphones were then cut off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That was not a point of order. Technology....

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

I see.

I think the committee should be considering, in the study of these allegations, that.... For example, in the riding of Compton--Stanstead, also in the province of Quebec, the Conservative candidate was Mr. Gary Caldwell and his official agent was Mr. Réjean Fauteux. My understanding is that it's their allegation that there were incorrect transactions.

In the riding of Outremont, which is a riding we speak of very often these days, because, as you well know, there's going to be a byelection on Monday, September 17, the former candidate in 2006, a gentleman by the name of Daniel Fournier, and his official agent, a gentleman by the name of Sylvain J. Perron, have also alleged that they were coerced, or that they were obliged--using the term in the French sense, obliger--or forced to participate.

There was a candidate in Richmond--Arthabaska in 2006, also for the Conservative Party of Canada, a fellow by the name of Jean Landry. It seems that Mr. Landry has a multitude of allegations, a multitude of facts, that he wants to bring forth.

There is also the lady, a very honest lady, Mrs. Lise Vallières, who would have been the official agent for the Conservative candidate in 2006 in Richmond--Arthabaska, who could be called as a witness. Her testimony would certainly help us to understand what was happening or what the intent was of all these transactions.

I'm not saying that all of these people should be called as witnesses for our study; I'm suggesting that there are interesting and honest people in this group that we could consider. Should the allegations we hear from these witnesses turn out to be true, then, as you are well aware, Mr. Chair, this is the opposite of what the intent of the electoral law of Canada is all about.

Our understanding of the law is that a national party is allowed to spend, let's call it, a “ceiling” of expenses for a campaign in Canada, and ridings--local ridings, local organizations--are allowed a maximum, another ceiling, of expenses. And you know the calculation. It works according to the number of voters in the riding, and there are additional amounts that can be allowed for extra population, distance, or a large area in a riding to help the candidate cover the extra expenses.

The allegations are that these ridings were forced by the national organization to state that they had used money for local advertising when supposedly, allegedly, the advertising was not for that particular riding.

I find it very amusing. I read a report in the media that the name of my riding, Hull--Aylmer, was used to run an advertising campaign in Quebec City, if I understand it right. I don't know why they would use the name of Hull--Aylmer in Quebec City, but supposedly this was done. And there are other examples like this that we could actually look at.

We could certainly call on officials of the Conservative Party of Canada to come and explain to us why it has been done this way. There have been allegations that.... The leader of the Conservative Party is a very smart individual who controls or knows everything that's going on, whether it be in his party or in his government, and it might be interesting to know what he knew about this process of “ins and outs”, as it's been called.

Mr. Chair, I think you will find it very interesting if we continue in our investigation of these allegations. And by all means, Mr. Chair, if these allegations turn out to be false and if this is a story that has been invented or, as we say in French, montée de toute pièce, well then it will be a different story. We will shut it down in the sense that we will shut down the rumours. It would certainly help Elections Canada to once and for all decide if they're going to pay. I guess they would have to reimburse all of these ridings, because I understand Elections Canada has been holding back on quite a few reimbursements, the 60% of expenses being reimbursed with taxpayers' money, to the ridings for the different election expenses.

I am convinced, Mr. Chair, that there is a multitude of good reasons why the committee should look into these allegations so that we can come up with answers for the Canadian public. And for these different campaigns, should the money be legally due to them, let's make sure that Elections Canada returns the money to them as soon as possible.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Mr. Proulx as well for his very interesting contribution.

Mr. Proulx listed a large number of people he thought would be appropriate witnesses to come before the committee on the subject of electoral finances, transfers between riding associations, national parties, and so on, but he's very anxious, based on his prior commentary at previous meetings, to ensure that this deals only with the previous election and only with the Conservative Party of Canada, despite the fact that his party, the Liberal Party of Canada, has engaged in similar practices, which are perfectly legal, and despite the fact that of course his party has also engaged in some financing practices that are very much not legal.

We are anxious to ensure that all these matters can be reviewed by this committee. You'll recall that at our first meeting I drew to the committee's attention the fact that the motion as submitted by Liberal members calling for this committee to come back was aggressively rhetorical, unnecessarily rhetorical, and made allegations that on the face of it are not so, certainly assuming the existence of facts that are incorrect, asking us as a committee to make findings of fact, which parliamentary bodies do not do, and violating the sub judice convention, that is, the convention that parliamentary committees and Parliament itself should not deal with and debate matters that are before the courts. What is before the courts is a matter in which the Conservative Party of Canada...or rather a number of representatives of local campaigns who had worked under the umbrella of the Conservative Party of Canada have taken Elections Canada to court because these campaigns engaged in perfectly legal activities that they were not receipted for. What they are arguing as plaintiffs is that Elections Canada is not merely incorrect in disallowing these expenses but actually owes a substantial amount of money. Now this has been turned around and twisted by members of the opposition into somehow being an action in which the Conservative Party of Canada is a defendant. This is clearly not the case.

We are very concerned, speaking of the sub judice convention, that these hearings could prejudice the results of that court action, in which we are attempting to get moneys owed to our local campaigns, and it would make it harder for us to compete in future elections, that we are denied moneys that the other parties have received in past elections when they've engaged in similar transfers between riding associations, campaigns, national campaigns, and the national party.

This is, of course, completely unjust, using a parliamentary committee in this way. So on this basis I've tried to devise an amendment that would allow us to deal with all these matters fairly and equitably, dealing with a number of election campaigns, and for that reason I would like to propose the following amendment to what we are dealing with:

That the Committee for Procedure and House Affairs conduct a thorough study as to whether and to what extent the Conservative Party of Canada and its predecessors, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, and the New Democratic Party, have engaged in the elections of 1997, 2000, 2004, and 2006,

(1) in the practice of transferring funds in the following ways:

(a) transfers from the national party or national campaign to local campaigns or riding associations,

(b) transfers from riding associations or local campaigns to the national party or national campaigns,

(c) transfers between riding associations and local campaigns; and

(2) the uses of any funds at the level of local campaigns:

(a) to pay for advertising that could promote campaigns or candidates in other ridings, or

(b) to pay for advertising that could promote the national campaign.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, I wonder if you could just help the chair understand how that's an amendment to the original motion and not a motion unto itself. How do you see it fitting in as an amendment to the motion before us?

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

What it's doing, Mr. Chairman, is allowing us to deal with a scope that includes all relevant practices. I think you've heard in Mr. Proulx's presentation a discussion of certain practices he felt were relevant to discussing transfers between associations.

The reference is made to allegations in the original motion, so one has to go back to look at what allegations they might be referring to. These are allegations of these kinds of transfer practices and the uses of funds. So I tried to enumerate the kinds of practices I found in the initial press reports to which, I assume, the movers of the original motion were referring when they spoke of allegations.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

I realize there's a little bit more detail, but I fail to see in substance how this is different from the amendment put forward earlier in this committee by Mr. Poilievre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I rule that's for debate. I'll make the decision whether it's different or not. If I could see how you've written the amendment to the motion, I'll take a second, if we can, just to make a ruling.

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

I'll give a copy to the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, I am ruling the amendment to the motion in order. We'll begin debate on the amendment.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I challenge your ruling.

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

Can I have a point of order, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No. We have a challenge on the ruling here. There's no debate required on that. I'll accept the point of order after we go for a vote.

The chair has been challenged on the ruling that the amendment is in order. I probably should explain that amendments that are substantially the same as other amendments are allowed but not during the same meeting.

The amendment is in order and I've been challenged on that decision.

All those in favour of sustaining the chair's decision will raise their hands.

[An hon. member]

May we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

A recorded vote? All right, then, call the names, please.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, the chair's decision has been overturned.

We'll go to the first point of order, Mr. Poilievre. The second point of order is from Mr. Reid.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I note that the Liberal Party is now on record twice having shut down any examination of its own books. It is joined by the Bloc Québécois, which would not like to see its in-and-out scheme, widely reported on in 2003, come under any scrutiny either.

We have more information coming out, Mr. Chair, about the practices of the Liberal Party in reference to these sorts of--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, Mr. Poilievre. That is actually a matter of debate. Although I appreciate your support, it's a matter of debate.

Mr. Reid, on another point of order.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. The chair was not even able to express the basis on which the ruling was made or to refer back to the rules at all before it was challenged. This seems to be part of a pattern of behaviour.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That's not a point of order.