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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All right. Then we're going to go to a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The chair's ruling is overturned. We're going to continue with debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

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

On a point of order, I just want to confirm that I had not surrendered the floor but merely submitted a motion, so I'd like to continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Poilievre, I think because the amendment you chose was overturned by the committee, I'm going to recognize the next speaker.

Go ahead, Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the risk of looking like I'm currying favour, I think you're doing a great job. I know this is very difficult.

I'm really pleased. I would have to agree with Monsieur Poilievre that I'm very pleased that the cameras are here. My only sadness is that this filibuster, which has been going on all week on this very important item, isn't a little bit more interesting.

It's important to point out for our viewing audience--and I know members around this table recognize this because we have all run successfully in elections or we wouldn't have the privilege of being members of Parliament--that all elections are subject to Elections Canada rules. I know previously when the Conservatives tried to bring in this broad-brush motion they seemed to say they needed some kind of standard of behaviour. Well, I would contend that there is a standard of behaviour and it is indeed the rules and regulations of the Canada Elections Act. Those are the rules under which all of us not only run elections but we abide by spending limits, whether it's the national party or the individual constituency in an election, and that is the yardstick by which we are measured.

The reason that four members—three Liberals and a Bloc member—asked for this meeting to be convened is because there are issues with Elections Canada, dealing directly with the Conservative Party, their candidates, their official agents, and some of their current members, over irregularities. And it isn't about transfers, as the Conservative members would have had the viewing audience believe, but indeed it was what would appear to be a widespread scheme in order to allow them to spend more than their limit.

If the allegations are correct, the Conservative Party of Canada used a systematic approach to funnel money into riding associations that had not spent up to their allowable limit and then turn around and help defray the cost of a national media campaign to the tune of slightly over $1 million.

Some of the issues around these allegations include the fact that there is no evidence that the ad expenses were incurred by the actual candidates who claimed them. There is no evidence that the candidates contracted the supplier for the purchase of the ads. Some of the candidates are on record as saying they had no knowledge of the buy details, and some said they were asked to contribute to the national advertising campaign.

The scheme was designed to give the appearance that local campaigns made the payment, and Conservative official agents characterized it as an in-and-out transaction. The scheme appears to have been designed to get additional rebates as well for candidates, because if you get 10% of your possible votes in an election, you do get a rebate from Elections Canada. The costs to run the ads were not an expense of the candidates but actually an expense of the national campaign.

The letter I referenced earlier was submitted on September 5, and the wording of it is to call a meeting under Standing Order 106(4),

in order to look into allegations made against the Conservative Party of Canada's systematic attempt to defraud Elections Canada, as well as the Canadian taxpayer, in relation to the 2006 federal election.

I need to point out that these allegations that we're referring to were not made by Liberals; they were not made by Bloc members, nor by NDP members, but rather Conservative Party candidates in the last election, and these individuals have a right to have their story told.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, in the interests of proper procedural comportment, these allegations have not been made by anyone—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I accept that.

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

—and I further note that they could be studied here before this committee if she had just supported the amendment we brought forward to hear all the parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's debate. Thank you very much.

Madam Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The issue is quite simple. The Conservative Party is alleged to have developed a scheme that may have shuffled more than $1 million in advertising money between itself and Conservative candidates, boosting candidate expenses by putting some of the national campaign costs on their books and qualifying, as I have stated earlier, for them to have larger Elections Canada rebates at the end of their election.

We all know that Elections Canada has rejected some of the expense claims filed by the Conservative candidates, stating that the national advertising campaign expense should have gone to the national campaign and not to these individuals. Should Elections Canada's decision stand, the national Conservative campaign could be forced to bring the cost of those ads into their books, which potentially could push their campaign over its legal spending limit, in violation of the Canada Elections Act. This is according to the Ottawa Citizen article dated August 25, 2007.

As I've mentioned earlier, these are serious allegations, and again, they are not made against the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, or the New Democratic Party, but these are against the Conservative Party of Canada. The only party that Elections Canada is having trouble with is the Conservative Party of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, Madam Redman, there's a point of order.

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

On a point of order, no such allegations have been made against the Conservative Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's debate.

Ms. Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, for a political party that extolled, as a matter of fact characterized, its party as one of accountability and transparency, you would think it would welcome this. Yet it has filibustered all week and not allowed us to go forward with this very important study.

I ask the Conservatives to allow a vote on the main motion. What are they afraid of? Mr. Chair, what do they have to hide?

Individuals have been named, and I will just name a couple in the spirit of expediency because I know my Bloc and NDP colleagues, as well as perhaps other Liberals, would like to have a chance to speak.

There are statements by Jean Landry, who ran for the Conservatives in Richmond—Arthabaska, who reported to the Ottawa Citizen that, “Directors of the Conservative party called me to tell me not to talk to Elections Canada again because there were others dealing with the problem”.

Perhaps you'd like to hear from Mr. Gary Caldwell, who ran for the Conservative Party in Compton—Stanstead, who reported, and I quote, in the Ottawa Citizen, “The federal party wanted to put through some of their expenses through the accounts of candidates who weren't spending up to their maximum”.

Mr. Chair, these are serious allegations. It is the appropriate mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to deal with this. I would ask our Conservative colleagues to quit filibustering and allow us to get on with this very important issue. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Madam Redman.

Next on the list is Mr. Dewar and then Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know this is frustrating for people who are watching. They're confused as to what this matter is about. Maybe I can come back to it, because I think it's important.

This isn't about money going in and out. This is about how money is spent, how money is claimed, and it's actually about truth in advertising. The truth in advertising is the following: did the local campaigns who supposedly authorized spending know that they were doing it for their own campaign, or was it in fact for the Conservative Party of Canada?

My friend across the way would have you believe that this is about money going in and out of campaigns. It is not that. It is Elections Canada's assertion that the party had transferred large amounts of money to the candidates' campaigns--more than $40,000 in several cases--and financial agents for the candidates promptly then transferred the money back to the party as a payment for radio and TV advertising.

Elections Canada says the candidates could not provide evidence they incurred the expenses. That means the cost would have to be credited to the party. As we've heard in media reports, the national ads the party unveiled during the campaign show very scant evidence that this had anything to do with local campaigns. Indeed, what we heard through the media reports that have already been referenced is that the candidates were unaware of the intent and use.

What this comes down to is a matter of trust, Mr. Chair, and the trust question is about who we should trust here. Do we trust the candidates at the local campaign who said they weren't aware of this scheme, or do we trust the party officials who have said everything was fine and that we should just trust them, or do we trust Elections Canada, which is, after all, the institution responsible for overseeing how spending is done? I would submit to you, Mr. Chair, that we need to have this in front of us. I would like Canadians to be able to see the truth.

I would finally like to talk a little bit about past experience. We know that this kind of scheme has been uncovered before, in the province of Manitoba. In fact, Minister Toews was known to have had a similar experience with this kind of situation. It might be interesting to have him in front of the committee to explain his experience in this kind of scheme. In fact, if you look at this, Mr. Chair, what we need to do is not examine the question being portrayed by our friends across the way, of opening books and looking at in and out, but what we need to do is to have a full examination of the issue of the day.

That is what I have just described from Elections Canada. That's what this is about. All parties had their books looked at, and a failing grade has only gone to one party to date. If there is further evidence that other parties and citizens wish to bring forward to Elections Canada, they can do that. That's why it's important that the Conservative Party stand down with their court actions to try to cover themselves.

I have to say that in the previous Parliament, in a previous time, it was the Conservative Party that did want to bring forward issues around malfeasance and misspending with another government, and they certainly didn't worry about whether or not court action was being taken. In fact, they dismissed it. I am saddened to say that this is a party that was being truthful--we thought--on changing the way business is done. We worked to have Bill C-2 amended to change who funds political parties in elections. We were hoping that was the congruent position of the party opposite, of the government. It's sad to see that they are fighting accountability, that they're fighting the Chief Electoral Officer, whom they appointed.

I just ask that the Conservative Party support us on this and support this motion. Let's get to work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

Am I hearing a point of order?

Mr. Reid, please go ahead on a point of order, .

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if memory serves, the Chief Electoral Officer was appointed unanimously with the support of all MPs, including this one. It was interesting to hear him on the one hand castigating the Chief Electoral Officer earlier as being unrepresentative and out of touch and now finding the exact opposite when the issue is more in his favour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's more a point of clarification. I think that's fair.

Next on my list is Mr. McGuinty, please, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to pick up on some of the comments made by one of the Conservative members with respect to other members of Parliament. It's unfortunate that the member of Parliament is prepared to so seriously try to deceive the Canadian people with respect to the nature of this investigation. So for the sake of clarity, let us review what has been happening with the members of the Conservative Party on this committee who are charged with the responsibility of debating intelligently whether this motion ought to pass or not, whether this should be the subject of a formal process by this committee.

Before I go through this list, I want to remind Canadians once again of something that my colleague, Ms. Redman, just did for the benefit of all Canadians watching and listening. There is only one party at the federal level right now that is subject to a formal investigation by the commissioner of elections. There's only one party subject to formal investigation, and that's the Conservative Party of Canada. No other party has been approached by the commissioner, no other party is being formally investigated, and no other party is trying to stop that investigation by challenging its conclusions in, I believe, Federal Court. That's an interesting variation in development.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McGuinty said that the Conservative Party is challenging the conclusions of an investigation. There have been no such conclusions, so that's inaccurate from a judicial perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, as I have mentioned earlier to a number of other members, I don't want the conversation to drift too far off the central point, which is the debate on the motion to go forward with the study. I am offering tons of leeway here.

Mr. McGuinty, I'll give you back the floor with that caution.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I think this is right on point, Mr. Chair. Is there something I'm missing? Is this not on point with respect to the motion we're debating?