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

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

I think we all agreed with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Well, I saw this side agree with me.

Is this other side agreeing with me?

Okay. You see, I do have somebody saying go to 4:15 only.

I do not have the authority to continue past 4:15. When we get to 4:15, if there's a motion to extend the meeting, I'll entertain that, but right now I don't have one. I'm sorry, I don't have consensus to go past 4:15.

Mr. Lukiwski, you have the floor.

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

Chair, I think I've made my point, which has also been made by other colleagues of mine. I know there are other colleagues, and perhaps other members of this committee, who want to speak to this issue, so I will conclude.

Again, Mr. Chair, I would like to offer an amendment to the motion before us that is reflective of my comments, and my comments on expanding the terms that this committee wishes to engage in when examining spending practices in previous elections.

For the clerk's purposes, I will read it into the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

One minute, Mr. Lukiwski, please.

Could I have quiet around the room? I only want to hear from members at the table, and preferably only those with the microphone. I am about to hear an amendment and I need to hear it.

Mr. Lukiwski, my apologies.

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

Thank you, Chair.

The amendment reads:

That the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conduct a thorough study of the spending practices of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP during each and every election and by-election since 1997. This study would include use of funds transferred in and out of national campaigns, local campaigns, and riding associations.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Could I have a look at it, please, Mr. Lukiwski?

[Some hon. members]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.

Earlier in this meeting I ruled these types of amendments in order and was overturned. It's a bit of a quagmire because this amendment is substantially similar to a previous amendment that I ruled in order but was then overturned. So let's just save ourselves a lot of time.

I am going to rule this amendment out of order, simply because it is substantially similar to a previous amendment at the same meeting.

The amendment is out of order.

A point of order.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. If it's potentially similar to another motion, you've already ruled it in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Well, as I said, I think if I rule it in order, we're just going to end up taking a vote. Ultimately it is substantially the same as a previous amendment.

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

I don't think you should feel intimidated by members of the opposition. You should rule how you want to rule, regardless of how they're going to overturn you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm trying to proceed, Mr. Poilievre. I can guarantee you I am not intimidated by anybody. I'm trying to make sure we can get as much done as possible in the few minutes we have left. So the amendment is out of order.

Mr. Lukiwski put the amendment forward. We are now on to Mr. Reid. You are up, if you want to speak.

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

I just got handed a note here. I was actually in the process of being prepared to make a point of order, but maybe the best way to deal with this is in the process of the debate.

Mr. Chair, the fact that the majority of members present here are willing to ride roughshod over the rules does not mean those are the rules. The fact that the majority of members here are willing to say they don't care what the rules say and will simply force the chair to make a ruling and then challenge the ruling, argue that the ruling is out of order, and suspend all debate effectively means they're imposing closure. There are methods for imposing closure; this is not actually in order.

In fact the majority on that side of the table who have been acting in this manner have been out of order every time they have done this. In fact this committee has been operating in violation of the orders because of this abuse of the orders by members opposite here. I think this is indicative to some degree of the kind of attitude by the parties opposite towards getting to the bottom of the fact...the attitude toward generally being respectful of the rules not only of Parliament but the rules that are contained in the law of the land.

I heard one member, Mr. McGuinty, go on at some length citing the number of ridings involved in Quebec in the matter he's trying to get discussed here. He of course avoided mentioning the 21 ridings in Quebec in which brown envelopes full of cash were delivered to the Liberal Party. Later on, as this was being brought up, he was saying that it was in 2004, and that was before the current law was in place. But when you're talking about actual fraud--actual completely illegal criminal activities--of course it's a different matter.

What has happened is that we've opened up an opportunity through our suggested amendments to deal with these other activities, including criminal activities. The Liberal Party was pretty clearly involved in Quebec, and he now wants to stop that investigation from going forward, just as his former leader, former Prime Minister Paul Martin, was anxious to make sure Judge Gomery would not be allowed to investigate these kinds of transfers and these kinds of criminal activities in the Gomery commission. That's why former Prime Minister Paul Martin chose to ensure that chapter 7 of the Auditor General's report dealing with these matters would be excluded from Judge Gomery's mandate.

This matter could be opened up now for investigation. The motions a number of us put forward, as I did myself, would have permitted it to take place. They would also have allowed investigations into other actions the Liberal Party has been engaged in--actions that are not illegal, but simply the same as the actions the Conservative Party has been engaged in and that we have been defending.

I emphasize once again, Mr. Chairman, the importance of remembering that all these matters have been brought to the attention of the public because the Conservative Party of Canada is engaged as a plaintiff in an action in court to ensure that we are paid the moneys owed to us for legal and permissible expenses that we undertook, moneys Elections Canada is refusing to give to us. It's a court matter. Ultimately I'm not going to be making that decision, nor will this body; it's going to be the courts that decide whether or not the action undertaken by the Conservative Party and the official agents for its various local campaigns is legitimate.

Even Elections Canada has only taken the position that there's a disagreement over an interpretation of a section of the law. This is very different from the over-the-top allegations contained in the original motion put forward by Liberal Party members in order to summon this committee here. They use terms like “systematic fraud”. This is the kind of thing that clearly Elections Canada is not asserting, but which did take place in the case of the practices on the part of the Liberal Party in Quebec, which transferred in periods now closed under the terms of the Canada Elections Act and its statute of limitations and which Judge Gomery should have been allowed to investigate.

If there has ever been a systematic attempt to defraud Elections Canada and the people of Canada, it has been in actions undertaken by the Liberal Party of Canada in its Quebec actions as part of the sponsorship scandal and in the web of intrigue in those envelopes of cash that it was involved in transferring around during the period leading up to 2004.

So part of the reason for us suggesting that we should go back to 2004, 2000, 1997, those elections, is that this opens up these activities—activities that are excluded by the choice to only look at the 2006 election that the Liberals have very selectively chosen to ask us to focus on.

It just seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this kind of fairness issue could be opened up, could be discussed. I really am very disappointed in the Liberal members opposite, that they are so reticent to having a little bit of light shed on their own past practices, so shameful and so inappropriate in the context of an advanced democracy like the Canadian democracy. Mr. Chairman, I hope they will seriously reconsider; otherwise I think when they go home and look at themselves in the mirror tonight they will want to hang their heads in shame for having tried to close down an opportunity that was presented here to have a truly valuable cleaning of house with regard to their own past financing practices.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I have four principal points that I would like to make, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me one moment.

A point of order?

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

Am I still on your list?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes, sir, you are still on the list.

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

You didn't forget me. You wouldn't do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I would never do that. I am sure you wouldn't allow me to.

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

Exactly. That's why I was checking. Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Marcel is unforgettable.

You know, the irony of today's discussion is that we could have started the hearings we're all discussing if the opposition had just voted for our amendment on Tuesday. We would have witnesses before us right now, the hearings would be unfolding before our eyes as we speak. But because the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP voted against opening their books to public scrutiny, we are continuing to debate the same thing we were on Tuesday. They have kept a full-blown filibuster going ever since.

My second point, Mr. Chair, is that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, Mr. Poilievre. There is a point of order.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Albeit a very poor filibuster. Everybody viewing can see the Conservatives are the ones who are filibustering.