Evidence of meeting #64 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was conservative.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Order. I'll make the decisions, thank you very much—and you can overturn them.
Mr. Reid is on a point of order and I am listening intently to the point.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the practice of calling for a challenge to the chair and summarily dismissing anything, including the ability of other amendments to be made, effectively means that anything that is not supported by a majority of the members of the committee at any time can be shut down simply by pushing the chair into a ruling and then challenging the chair's ruling. This means in practice that what the Liberals have just done, effectively, is to ensure that no matter can be discussed in this meeting or any other meeting when they don't want it to be discussed. No matter can be addressed; freedom of speech can be silenced.
This is effectively a method for muzzling opposition at their will, the will of the majority at the moment. It's a very, very dangerous precedent.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Okay, I appreciate that, Mr. Reid. I think I have the intent of your point.
My ruling on the point of order is that the chair is not obliged to give his opinion on the ruling; that is at the option of the chair. I was hoping to convince my members in front of me of the reasoning for my correct ruling.
It is overturned, and we will now go back to the original debate on the original speakers' list.
Mr. Poilievre is up first and then Madam Redman, please.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
This time it was caught on camera. Once before the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP voted against having their books come under public examination, but they did that in a very dark, quiet place underground here in the Parliament Buildings. This time, however, the sunshine of cameras was on their faces.
A lot of voters, a lot of Canadians, will be watching these proceedings wondering why the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party do not want their financial practices to come under public scrutiny. They'll wonder why only the Conservative Party in this room has offered to have its financial practices brought for public scrutiny. We are the only party that has offered, in a motion, to have our practices questioned by a public committee of Parliament. So a lot of people are going to wonder why only one of the four parties represented here would be willing to put up with that kind of scrutiny.
I wondered myself why the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP were so hostile to opening up their books and being transparent. As I started to research some of their practices, some answers started to come to light explaining why they might not want to have their books brought under some sort of examination.
I look to the riding of Ms. Marlene Jennings. In her constituency, $16,132.93 was transferred from her electoral district association to the Liberal Party of Canada. Then just over a week later, the Liberal Party of Canada transferred that exact same amount—$16,132.93—without reporting it, mind you, back to Ms. Jennings' riding association. Ms. Jennings' riding association then transferred that money to the candidate, who then claimed a rebate on that amount of money. Then Ms. Jennings transferred that money back to the EDA, and the circle was closed after four transactions of exactly the same number of dollars—$16,132.93. The Liberal Party has benefited from a rebate, and it is not known why these transactions occurred in the first place.
I will be more than willing to have members of the media approach me afterwards, and we will put them in contact with auditors who will show them all of the steps in this very interesting funnel of money. They can review them themselves directly, not relying on our sources but relying on the information we have been able to dig up.
They will find that this is not an isolated incident in the Liberal Party of Canada. In fact, in the riding of Mr. Pablo Rodriguez, the Liberal Party of Canada transferred $13,322.68 on May 4, 2004. This was reported in the electoral district association's report; the federal party did not report it at all. That money was then transferred to the candidate, Mr. Rodriguez, who then recorded it as an expense and was eligible to receive the rebate. So federal money was spent locally obtaining a rebate for the local candidate. The EDA says it made a mandatory transfer to a candidate. The candidate says it received a non-monetary transfer from the Liberal Party of Canada. Who is right? There's a contradiction between the two.
Perhaps the riding association will come forward and explain these peculiarities away. Perhaps the Liberal Party will come forward and explain why it has engaged in transfers for a generation to its riding associations and that those transfers have been claimed for rebates. Perhaps, as the Liberals would have us believe, they did absolutely nothing wrong. If that is the case, then they should have supported Mr. Reid's amendment to have them come forward. If they argue that they have done nothing wrong and that there's nothing there, and if they argue that their practices are comparatively superior and cleaner, then they should welcome this investigation that we're proposing they participate in.
Mr. Chair, there's additional information on the Liberal Party of Canada. I have another four-step funding method carried out by one of the members of Parliament whose name I will make known and public a little later on. That member will have a lot of explaining to do, because he puts himself forward as the moral example of his party. This particular member has engaged in a degree of righteous indignation that would make any one of us blush. His practices are going to come under scrutiny later on today.
Before I go there, I would like to discuss the term “in and out”. It was coined earlier this decade not by the Conservative Party or its predecessor parties but actually in reference to the practices of the Bloc Québécois. I have here an article from the front page of the National Post, entitled “How Bloc Boosted Federal Funds”: “ Party says tactic proper: BQ paid campaign workers, who then donated to party”. This article explains how the Bloc Québécois would give salaries to campaign workers; those workers would donate those salaries back to the party; then the worker would be eligible for a tax credit and the party would be eligible for a rebate. All of that was subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.
No committee on Parliament Hill was ever able to fully investigate these claims. No parliamentary committee in this setting was able to get to the bottom of it.
So why not come clean now? Why not put all of this to rest and simply agree to have Bloc Québécois books examined, along with Conservative, NDP, and Liberal books?
This report, by a distinguished journalist, Andrew McIntosh, indicates:
Political organizers, supporters and candidates for the Bloc Québécois participated in a province-wide effort during the 2000 election to boost their campaign spending to help the separatist party secure larger federal government-funded election expense refunds for its coffers.
A National Post investigation has found that more than 1,000 Bloc Québécois organizers, supporters and candidates took part in the effort using what party organizers called "La Methode In and Out.”
That's where we get that term from.
It saw Bloc organizers, supporters and candidates move money in and out of their bank accounts in a web of deals designed to create expenses that generated larger post-election government refunds for the Bloc and tax credits for its supporters.
It goes on:
According to thousands of pages of documents Bloc Québécois organizers filed with Elections Canada after the 2000 campaign, Bloc candidates paid normally unpaid organizers and volunteers a sum of money for organizing or for car expenses or the use of their basement offices or home telephones.
So they effectively paid people to rent people's domestic telephones and then asked that those payments be reimbursed to the party.
What does everyone get out of this scheme? Well, the person who rented their telephone out gets a big, fat tax credit. The Bloc Québécois gets a rebate, because the payment is considered an expense
Mr. Chair, how many times did this practice occur? Not once, not twice, but one thousand times. This distinguished reporter refers to it as a “web of deals” designed to create expenses that generated larger post-election government refunds for the Bloc and tax credits for its supporters.
Now, the Bloc claims that it has nothing to hide in this matter. Fine; we'll take their word on it, I guess. But we'll check to make sure and we will move that they, as well as all of the parties, do what we have pledged to do, which is to make all of their finances public and to be susceptible to questions in front of the committee, so that all eyes can see and all ears can hear.
Chair, I have article after article looking into “la méthode in and out”.
The Bloc Québécois used the in-and-out method in order to pay volunteers to provide services that are normally provided free of charge. Afterwards, the volunteers gave that money to the Bloc Québécois in order to be eligible for a tax credit, and to allow the party to obtain a rebate from the government. That is in this article. So these facts are public, but there has never been any investigation of the practices of the Bloc Québécois. Now, its members are hiding these facts from the committee. They never explained why these volunteers and party workers could not appear before the committee. What do they have to hide? What is the problem? Are they trying to hide certain things from us, Mr. Chairman? As far as I am concerned, I imagine that that is the case, since they have had two opportunities to support our motion requesting that we invite all of the parties to appear before the committee. And why shouldn't they?
Mr. Proulx referred to witnesses that he might like to have appear before the committee, and that is his right. But if he wants to do so why does he not support the motion we have introduced? It would allow him to call all of the witnesses he mentioned. If he really wants an investigation into some of the practices of the Conservative Party, we are in agreement; let him do so. We introduced two motions which would allow everyone to do so. He voted against holding this investigation. Is that the right thing to do when people want an investigation? I don't think so.
You can't claim to be in favour of holding an inquiry and then vote against it. And yet that is what he did. Just like all of the other Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, he voted against holding an investigation of the parties' practices. They're willing to do this before the cameras. This is hypocrisy on the part of the opposition parties. I think that our party has a lot of reasons to be proud of itself today because it is the only one to agree to have its accounts and practices examined within the context of such an inquiry. We are so open that we will allow the committee to investigate this, but we are the only ones to set this challenge to the committee.
Mr. Chairman, in another Liberal riding the decision was made to transfer an amount of $12,200...
from the local association of the Liberal Party to the local campaign. Then an invoice was produced. That invoice talked about non-monetary services being rendered. The campaign then sent that money back to the national party. That same amount--$12,200--was transferred from the local Liberal association back to the Liberal Party of Canada. That was on April 22, 2004. And then on May 7, 2004, the Liberal Party transferred that same $12,200 back to the local Liberal riding association.
This is a very strange circular pattern in which money is flushed into the party, out of the party, into the association, out of the association, in exact dollar values that are unchanged from transaction to transaction. No details were given to Elections Canada of how the money was actually spent. The only way to find out would be to ask those responsible for these transactions how the money was spent, because the invoice in question that the local campaign used says only that it was for non-monetary services. So there are very few details.
Chair, I'm hoping that the committee will be prepared for this, because I think unfortunately this is going to become much more serious. The riding in question is the riding of Mr. Stéphane Dion.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, you were very patient in letting Mr. Proulx talk through different possibilities.
I know they're upset--
3 p.m.
Some hon. members
[Inaudible--Editor]
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Order, please.
Mr. Poilievre, I just want to make a suggestion that I am offering some leeway, because you are correct. Monsieur Proulx opened the door on mentioning names and making allegations. So I'm offering as much leeway as I can.
I just want to make sure we're focused on the motion at hand. I believe we are at this point, but this is just a little caution. Thank you.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
There seems to be quite an emotional outburst over there, Mr. Chair.
3:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
And to the viewers, I apologize if you've not been able to hear my remarks, because there have been some gyrations over there.
When I brought forward the name, that this is in fact Stéphane Dion, I know it's probably something they would have liked to know before the leadership convention occurred.
Although it's not normal to have a leader of the opposition before a committee, I would be prepared to let him explain his conduct and the conduct of the riding association before the committee, as part of the overall study that would look into the financial practices of all parties.
So I say that to them, if they would be so kind—I see that we have Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Patry, and Ms. Redman—to feel free to communicate to their leader that we on this side would be willing to entertain a motion to bring him forward to explain these new revelations.
It looks like there's a real mess on hand, Mr. Chair, because we have a whole group of opposition parties who have declared that the practice of transferring funds between parties and local riding associations is an egregious violation of the law, but today we find out that they have engaged in exactly the same transfers.
I think with these new revelations in mind, the committee, I'm sure, would be willing to change its approach and that members of the opposition who have been blocking any study of their financial practices would alter their position and agree to have hearings on how they've been managing their affairs, now that this has been publicly revealed and it's no longer being kept a secret that they have engaged in exactly the transfers they are decrying.
With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I propose an amendment. It reads as follows:
That the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conduct a thorough study into the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP's use of transfers between the national parties, the electoral district associations, and the local campaigns to determine if these transactions were sufficiently legitimate, transparent, and in congruence with the law for all elections dating back to 1997.
I know that some in the past have been anxious to defeat such a motion and have it ruled right out of order, because they've already voted against it, but in light of the new revelations that have come forward today, I think the motion is deserving of some more consideration. I think that given that the cameras are here and given that Liberal members are learning about the practices of their leader and his riding association, the members might entertain this motion and start to begin hearings as soon as possible, so that we can get to the bottom of all of these things, and that all members and all parties—
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
We seem to be in a pattern of trying to amend and amend and amend. It's a war of attrition, it seems. Notwithstanding the best attempt to play Perry Mason across the way, we have a motion that was in front of us before, to deal with advertising, not just in and out....
What Mr. Poilievre seems to be trying to do is to bring in yet another motion. I would like to stick to the motion. It wasn't about in and out; it was about advertising money, and I think we need to stick to that.
Thank you.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you.
Mr. Poilievre, do you have the amendment in writing? Could I have a look at it for a minute to make a ruling?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes.
Mr. Chair, could I be allowed to speak to my motion?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Wait until I make a ruling, please.
Colleagues, I am going to rule that the amendment to the motion is in order.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
The amendment is in order and we have a challenge to the chair.
There is no debate. The motion on a challenge is “shall the chair's ruling be sustained?”
I'm hearing that we need a recorded vote.
3:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
[Inaudible--Editor]
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I'm sorry, there's a lot of noise. Order. Order, please.
I know it's getting late, but it's difficult enough to hear with all the conversations. Did I or did I not hear someone request a recorded vote?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Yes. That's for transparency reasons, Mr. Chair.
