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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have had a number of questions as we've listened through the afternoon. It almost sounds like we're having the study right now. I'm not going to tell you which direction to go in. I've made the caution to other members. I'm just asking you too.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I agree.

Coming back to the point that was being made, the Conservative members, with respect to other transactions that have occurred in other ridings, which are frankly outside the ambit of this motion...I think it's important to remind viewers that they are outside the ambit of this motion. If the Conservative members on this committee really think there is some kind of unethical or potentially illegal activity around the fact that Mr. Reid himself transferred $4,592.58 to his campaign, in and out, but he's not listed as an in-and-out participant by Elections Canada.... Mr. Poilievre transferred $15,672 to his campaign on January 23 and then he paid his riding association back the same amount. He's not listed by Elections Canada as participating in the in-and-out ad buy scheme. Joe Preston's riding association transferred $10,500 to his campaign and then back again for advertising expenses. They're not listed by Elections Canada as participating in the in-and-out ad buy question. Mr. Lukiwski transferred from his riding a total of $12,000, transferred in with only about $5,000 being expensed as advertising. And finally, on that very same note, Mr. Stephen Harper transferred $40,000 into his campaign, but he books only $20,401.22 as a refund of expenses incurred on behalf of the national campaign.

Those transactions occurred. There's no doubt they occurred. Here's the difference. Somebody on the other side said there are all kinds of transactions not reported. Well, obviously they don't understand the election financing laws of this country, because any expense over $50 must be backstopped with receipts.

Let me go back to my main point. There is only one party being investigated by the elections commissioner--not two, three, or four; there's only one.

I would suggest that another aspect of this motion be factored in, Mr. Chair, and that is what took place in my own riding, my own electoral district of Ottawa South, where there was a $41,000 transfer into the riding association of a Mr. Allan Cutler, the accountability guy of the government, the accountability guy who received $41,000--

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

A point of order.

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

Under the guise of parliamentary privilege, Mr. McGuinty is seeking revenge against a whistle-blower who exposed his previous government's activity, and I think that's highly inappropriate. This is not the forum for character assassination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, Mr. Poilievre. That's debate.

I would just remind members that a point of order is to point out a deviation from the rules and practices of the House or committees. It's not to be used as a matter of debate.

Mr. McGuinty, you still have the floor.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's obviously a very sensitive issue, because the truth hurts.

The reality here is that in my own riding there were all kinds of transactions that went on that I think we ought to hear about. I think it would be very interesting, for example, to convene Mr. Alan Riddell as part of this study. Mr. Riddell participated in a $50,000 payoff to step aside in my own riding to allow another candidate to run--a payoff that was denied by the Prime Minister, denied by the Conservative Party of Canada, until a Superior Court of Justice in Ontario ordered the government's party, the Conservative Party, to honour the payment, which now we discover may or may not be in breach of the Canada Elections Act and financing laws themselves. This is such a serious issue, which is linked to this motion, Mr. Chair, that the Prime Minister himself has been repeatedly convened to testify and is hiding behind parliamentary privilege and immunity. Just as recently as three weeks ago, when he already had one judgment against his party, he's now desperately trying to defend a second action that speaks to libel and other issues by a former candidate of the Conservative Party of Canada.

I think Mr. Riddell has a lot to tell us about in-and-out schemes--a $50,000 receipt of moneys, a sum that is in excess of the actual amount of money he could have spent in any nomination campaign, which may or may not be in breach of Canada's election financing laws.

What did Mr. Cutler know about this? What did Mr. Harper, the Prime Minister, know about this? Did he authorize such a payment to Mr. Riddell? Did he knowingly authorize it, knowing it might be potentially illegal? When was it authorized? What about the $41,000 that flowed in from the central party? We're not sure what happened to it. How much of that went to central advertising? How much came back in the form of subsidies by the Canadian taxpayer to subsidize the Conservative Party of Canada?

Please correct me. Have I misspoken? Have I misstated any facts? The chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was forced to rule against the party after serious stonewalling by the president of the party, who refused to come and testify--not once, not twice, but four times--until under threat of subpoena the president of the party showed up under protest, Mr. Chair, to have to deny that a $50,000 payoff occurred, a secret deal, the payoff. Unfortunately for the Conservative Party of Canada, this involved a candidate who happens to be a very solid citizen and a very, very accomplished civil litigator. Perhaps the Conservative Party of Canada might want to rule out the participation of civil litigators as candidates in the future. I don't know.

I think those questions deserve to be examined. I think Mr. Cutler would have something to tell us about this. He's a very decent man. I'm sure he has some insight as to what took place here. What $41,000 did he receive? How did it flow out? What advertising costs were assumed? I don't know. My constituents would like to know. I'm sure Mr. Riddell has something to help us understand in this respect. He has very intricate knowledge of--

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

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

A point of order, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Mr. Riddell and that issue are before the courts. Therefore, I think it's inappropriate to be speaking about this at this meeting.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I disagree, Mr. Chair. You can go ahead and rule, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I will, and I'll just take the microphone for a moment.

All colleagues will remember the convention. It is voluntary--the sub judice convention where we try not to state anything that might influence the courts or bias either party before the courts, such that they get a fair trial. I would caution members to restrict their comments and respect that convention.

Thank you.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Chair.

Everything I have said today has been widely reported in half a dozen media outlets across the country, perhaps more on the Internet. I agree with and respect the convention.

But it is interesting how the gist of the pure Conservative spin on the other side doesn't deal with the fact that transfers from political parties to riding associations and candidates are legitimate and permitted by Elections Canada.

Because one of the members happened to single out my leader's riding, let's talk about that. Let's get that on the record, debunk the myths, and tell the truth.

What happened in Mr. Dion's riding is completely different from the alleged Conservative election deception, because in that riding no one exceeded advertising limits. That riding didn't get any Elections Canada rebates. The transfer wasn't even for advertising; it was for signs and insurance.

Elections Canada audited the file and found no concerns, unlike the cases of so many Conservative candidates who are now picking and rolling on their party. Former Conservative candidates Jean Landry and Ann Julie Fortier are on the record saying that Conservative ad expenses were not local campaign expenses and that they were forced, almost coerced, to participate—and the direction came from the very top. Did the Prime Minister authorize this? Did he knowingly allow this shenanigan to happen on his watch?

The reason Elections Canada challenged the Conservative Party on their advertising expenses was because they were expensed as campaign expenses, but there is no evidence that they were in fact campaign expenses.

There's an allegation here of an orchestrated, top-down scheme involving 70 ridings—not 7 or 10 of them—in the 2006 campaign. This appears to have allowed the Conservative Party to spend more on national advertising than the law permits, while at the same time inflating the rebate moneys that Conservative candidates were entitled to receive.

Elections Canada determined that these were not local campaign expenses. As a result, Elections Canada did the right thing and refused to provide the rebates to the candidates.

The Conservatives' former candidates—again, Jean Landry and Ann Julie Fortier—are on the record saying that these were not local campaign expenses, that they were forced to participate, and that the direction came from the very top.

In the instance of my leader's riding, there was no rebate from Elections Canada. Neither the Liberal Party of Canada nor the riding exceeded advertising limits, and most importantly there was no scheme orchestrated by the Liberal Party to do what the Conservatives appear to have done. The expense in question on the Saint-Laurent—Cartierville books did not even involve advertising; it was for lawn signs and insurance.

What also needs to be made clear about the situation in that particular riding is that $44,000 was owed from the party to the riding association from fundraising revenues at the beginning of 2004. This money was returned to the riding in two instalments, the first on May 7, 2004, in the amount of $12,200. This was used to pay for the riding's services package, provided by the party to all campaigns, including maps, materials, and other items to assist local campaigns. Another payment in the amount of $32,549.17 was made on May 26, 2004. This was the remaining debt that was owed.

It's important to remember that transactions from a political party to a riding association or candidate, and even back again, are permitted by Elections Canada law.

The reason Elections Canada is challenging the Conservative Party on their advertising expenses is because they were expensed as local campaign expenses, but there is zero evidence that they were expenses incurred by the local campaign. There is not a shred of evidence.

This is not the case for the riding of my leader. In fact, Elections Canada reviewed these expenses, as they do and as they will for all candidates' election filings, and raised no concerns, unlike in the case of the Conservative Party, again, where they found serious problems in 70 campaigns.

So I would like to see the witness list include, for example, the president of the Conservative Party of Canada, the chief financial officer of the Conservative Party of Canada. I would like to see--

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

Chair, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me one minute, Mr. McGuinty.

On a point of order, please.

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

For there to be a witness list, we require a motion to be passed. He's voted down a motion to investigate any of this. So he's blocking any investigation of these matters by voting against our motion to have such an investigation. If you could, indicate to Mr. McGuinty that he's out of order by putting forward a witness list for an investigation that he's defeated from happening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I believe we're still on the main point, which is investigating the original motion. We've all been putting forward witness lists for various sides, so I am going to allow him to continue.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I again would like to see, for example--I'd suggest for the committee's consideration--the president of the Conservative Party of Canada, the chief financial officer of the Conservative Party of Canada, the chief legal adviser to the Conservative Party of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Alan Riddell, Mr. Allan Cutler, and all kinds of other players at the local level in 70 campaigns.

I think we could really do a great service to Canadians by examining in detail how this scheme actually worked and who knew about it. After all, these are the accountability guys. If the accountability guys really are interested in seeing election financing laws improved, it's very important to get to the very bottom of this, Mr. Chair.

Those are my remarks, Mr. Chair. I think the sooner we get to this, in terms of this study and the examination of these witnesses, the better off the Canadian public will be.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

Next on my list is Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I, too, will echo the comments made by several of my colleagues around the table, and I'm very pleased to see that this is on camera.

The one main difference between my colleagues Ms. Redman and Mr. McGuinty and me is that I won't be reading prepared remarks by our research staff; I'll be talking about some of the things that actually occurred and some of the things that we should be talking about here.

Let me first say that one of the things I believe the Canadian public should be aware of, and one of the reasons we have raised amendments to the motion presented by members of the opposition, to include investigations into spending practices and election practices of all opposition parties, is that in fact, Mr. Chair, as you would well know, when we asked the chair to rule on whether their motion was actually in order, your ruling came back, supported by the law clerk of this chamber, Mr. Walsh, saying, no, it is not in order because it is too restrictive.

Ultimately, your ruling was challenged and overturned by members of the opposition, which further demonstrates their willingness to become no more than a partisan witch-hunt operation. Mr. Walsh correctly noted that to be in order this motion should be more inclusive, more expansive, in its nature. That's why we're saying, hey, we want an investigation; let's expand it to include the practices, the advertising practices, the spending practices, and the transfer practices, in elections not only in 2006 but going back 10 years, of all opposition parties.

I believe that motion would be well in order and is consistent with the legal findings of some of those people who advise all members in this chamber. Yet, of course, the members of the opposition chose to ignore that, because that's not what they want to get at. They don't want to do a thorough investigation of advertising and spending practices. They want to engage only in a political witch hunt, and they're attempting to do that.

Hence we have seen, time and time again, when we have offered to allow them to enter into a clear and thorough discussion of practices of their own parties, by way of our amendments, they have voted against it. In fact, they will continue to do so, because I am convinced, and I think most Canadians who give any more than just a cursory glance to the proceedings here today and the issues at hand will recognize as well, that there's a reason for their reluctance—frankly, more than reluctance, their absolute resistance to having their own books opened up.

We absolutely have nothing to hide. We want and we welcome an investigation. We've been calling for that. We are the only party of this committee calling for that. But we also, in the issue of fairness, are saying, “Why don't we examine all of the practices?” I am sure, as exhibited by illustrations given by my colleague Mr. Poilievre and more—and there will be more to come—the practices of opposition parties, whether they be Liberal or Bloc Québécois...there are many, many questions to be answered by members of the opposition parties. They choose not to allow those questions to be even posed, let alone answered.

I want to directly talk a little bit about the question at hand, and that is whether or not there was any untoward activity by the Conservative Party in their advertising in the 2006 election at the local level.

Apparently, the suggestion is that if a local candidate ran an ad that happened to be one that was running nationally, that would be wrong. I can assure you, having dealt with this issue intimately over the course of the last 10 years at a provincial level, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The key is to ensure that all ads run by a local campaign, should they be national in perspective, be tagged that they are authorized by the local candidate and the official agent, and that's exactly what happened on every single occasion.

I am absolutely convinced that when the investigation that is currently before the courts is concluded, they will find there has been absolutely no untoward, illegal activity whatsoever by the Conservative Party or any of its candidates. That is just a given.

Mr. Chair, I can relate this point to comments I made yesterday during proceedings. During my time as executive director of two provincial political parties, we undertook an examination of the Saskatchewan Elections Act. We made sure that we mirrored as closely as possible the proceedings and the guidelines of the federal act. We obviously made some localized amendments that would be unique to Saskatchewan, but on the whole and in general, Mr. Chair, the amendments we made when we revised the Saskatchewan Elections Act were very consistent with what the Canada Elections Act says.

With respect to this very issue, Mr. Chair, we were absolutely on point. We absolutely mirrored or replicated, if you will, what is allowed in terms of advertising at the federal level. That is to say, Mr. Chair, that if a local candidate wanted to run an ad that happened to be produced by the provincial—or, in this case, the federal—party and that happened, perhaps, even to be running on a provincial or federal basis, it was absolutely allowed, as long, of course, as you had the required tag line, which is “authorized by” such and such a candidate and his official agent.

The premise there is probably pretty easy to understand for all Canadians who are watching these proceedings. In other words, Mr. Chair, who is to tell a local candidate what he or she can or cannot run in terms of advertising that would promote their candidacy? If I wish, Mr. Chair, to run an ad that may not be considered local in nature but that I believe has the best opportunity to garner support in my riding, I should have the right to do so. That's what's at issue here, Mr. Chair.

But as we examine the spurious allegations by members of the opposition in saying this is a systematic, top-down attempt to defraud the Canadian public, which I absolutely and totally, without equivocation, reject—as does our party—they do open the door, Mr. Chair, for the examination of practices of the opposition parties.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that members opposite and their respective parties have been throwing a lot of rocks, but they have an awful lot of windows, because there's a bunch of glass houses over there, which we have seen and examples of which we have given today: practices that should be questioned by this committee. Their avoidance of that questioning, Mr. Chair, to me speaks of only one thing: they don't want to get into a discussion of what some of their candidates and some of their parties have done, not only in the 2006 election but in previous elections.

My colleague Mr. Poilievre has made reference to what happened in the 2000 election with the Bloc Québécois—and I reiterate some of those, Mr. Chair—talking about the in-and-out scheme, about which, although on one hand members of the opposition at this table seem to say “we can't talk about that, let's just talk about ad content”, yet in the same or the next breath they say that this in-and-out, top-down scheme to defraud the Canadian public is something we should investigate.

You can't have it both ways.

Clearly, in 2000 there were questions about the practices of the Bloc Québécois. My colleague has mentioned a number of them, and there are others. For example, the newspaper report my colleague referenced also stated that there were many examples in which suppliers, wishing to donate services to a local Bloc Québécois candidate, were told, “No, we will pay you full retail value for those services, but in turn you can donate that money back to our party. In that manner, you, being a donor to the party, would receive a tax credit, and we, being the local candidate, can claim an expense, because we have paid for your services, rather than your donating them to us.” That is an in-and-out scheme, Mr. Chair.

There were great questions about that, answers to which have never been received. There are questions my colleagues have brought forward today about Liberal spending practices.

I think this is the important point to note, Mr. Chair. It's not only the practice of what's been called the in and out, but there have been some serious concerns about some of the practices the Liberals engaged in, in 2006, that frankly were more than simply transfers between the Liberal Party of Canada and their riding associations or candidates.

Our research has shown examples where transfers occurred between EDAs and the Liberal Party of Canada, where the EDA claims, in their return, that a transfer was made, but the Liberal Party of Canada does not claim there was any transfer. In other words, two returns were filed.

As we all know--we've all been in this business a long time--the local candidate has to file an election return and the central party has to file an election return. Mr. Chair, when an EDA claims on their return that they received money from the Liberal Party of Canada, but the Liberal Party of Canada does not indicate on their return that they gave that money, the question has to be asked, “Why not?”

Yet the Liberals--particularly the Liberals--at this committee refuse to allow those questions to be asked. Why? I think it's reasonable to suggest that the reason is that they don't want to find out the answers. And more importantly, Mr. Chair, I would suggest they don't want the Canadian public to find out the answers to those questions.

Once again--and I will say this for the umpteenth time--we are not rejecting or refusing or trying to filibuster any request for a thorough investigation. We are only suggesting and recommending, Mr. Chair, that if you want to have a thorough investigation, tit for tat, let's take a look at all political parties, because there are many questions that have not been answered, many of which we have raised today.

We are fully prepared to answer any questions. Whether they be officials of our party, candidates, or official agents, we are fully prepared to have them answer those questions. We have engaged in a legal action with Elections Canada, not because we're trying to obfuscate or delay proceedings, but we're trying to get the money back that is rightfully owed--the rebates--to our candidates, because we contend, and I certainly support that contention, that we did absolutely nothing wrong. Yet there are questions we have raised today that the opposition members refuse to answer and refuse to have brought forward to this committee.

Now, who is hiding what, Mr. Chair? I ask you that. It's certainly not us. And I would suggest, Mr. Chair, if they were truly sincere in their beliefs or their contention that they have nothing to hide, then what is the problem? Why do they repeatedly refuse examination of their election practices for the last number of years? I think we can safely say, Mr. Chair, that there is a reason why they certainly don't want to go back to 1997 and the 2000 campaigns. As Justice Gomery pointed out, there were a lot of irregularities during those two campaigns. In fact, Mr. Chair, as we pointed out, there is $40 million that can't be accounted for. And we know, as Justice Gomery pointed out in his report, copies of which we have here, that there was a lot of money being illegally transferred to and from the Liberal Party of Canada during those years.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, one of the reasons members opposite are refusing our request to expand this investigation, as legal counsel has suggested we do, is because they don't want to know the answers. They don't want to have anybody digging into past practices, not only because they're afraid that Justice Gomery's report, which was restricted to a degree by the terms of reference set out by the former Prime Minister, but that we might open it up and expand those terms of reference and we might find things they don't want us to find and they don't want the Canadian public to find.

Mr. Chair, there is only one party, as my colleague Mr. Poilievre has said, that has said it wants to have a full airing of all of the practices that occurred, not only in 2006, but in previous years, and that's the Conservative Party. I have yet to hear one Liberal member on this panel suggest they would be willing at this committee to investigate spending practices and election practices over the last decade. Why hasn't one of them come forward and said, “We have nothing to hide, let's open this up?”

In fact, Mr. Chair—although I'm certainly not authorized to do so—here's what my suggestion would be. If we agree to that, if we agree to bring all of the parties into the fold and to examine all of the practices, my suggestion would be, hey, let's have all of the Conservative witnesses first. Let's examine the Conservatives first. Get that right out into the open right from the get-go, right off the top—as long as they would agree to give us equal time to examine the witnesses we would like to bring to explain their very curious practices, some of which we have illustrated today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski, thank you.

I'm not going to take the floor from you. I just want to remind members that the original closing time for this meeting was 4 o'clock.

Hang on, now. As I said at the beginning, we did get started a little bit late, so I'm willing to go a few more minutes here, if it's okay with members.

I see some members have other engagements and are leaving. Just out of respect for everybody, I would like permission from the committee to continue for maybe another 10 or 15 minutes.

I'm seeing that people are okay with another 10 to 15 minutes.

Mr. Lukiwski, you still have the floor.

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

Let me just say, Mr. Chair, that as far as I'm concerned—and I think I can speak on behalf of my colleagues—we'll stay here as long as you want, because I think we want to make sure the Canadian public understands that we are not the ones resisting discussing this issue. It is the members opposite. They will not allow, under any circumstances, Chair, an examination of their own election practices over the last decade. That has become exceedingly evident. I think people who are watching these telecasts today understand that now.

If they have nothing to hide, Mr. Chair, it's very easy: just agree to an amendment to allow this to expand, as the law clerk of this assembly suggested. Let's just open it up. Let's bring every party's books to this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There's a point of order, Mr. Lukiwski, please.

Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I hope this is a point of order.

I don't think anybody asked to see the Conservative Party's books or any other party's books. We're asking to look at a specific point in time. I say this just for clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's debate, thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, I will entertain a motion to extend the meeting, as suggested, but right now I'm looking at—