Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You said there was no rule before, but you just made a rule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm not making a ruling. I'm reminding you of the facts.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

There's another point of order?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

On a point of order, yes, there are rules, as you so correctly stated. You as chair make the decision to enforce a rule, to interpret a rule, and decide whether or not it is applicable.

You have made a decision that, one, there is a rule, and two, it is applicable to Mr. Lukiwski's motion. Therefore, there is a member here who has challenged your decision that the so-called rule is applicable. That means there's no debate, there's a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

First of all, I did not make a ruling, Madam Jennings--and I appreciate and welcome you to the committee. Mr. Godin is correct that I have had these issues come up before. Mr. Reid is correct that I have asked members who put motions forward. I can do exactly the same thing, which is precedent. I'm not making a ruling. I'm following the order this committee has always gone by.

Mr. Lukiwski, are you willing to delay your motion?

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

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We're moving on with Mr. Lukiwski.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

On a point of order, I just want to go on the record to say that if you check the blues, you'll see that when that was done it was done not only because of the mover, it was because the whole committee agreed to move it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

This is more debate.

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

Once again, Chair, I am merely proposing in my motion that we examine all of the advertising practices of every party in the House of Commons. I go back even further than the intent of Madam Redman's motion for the 2006 election, so that we examine the advertising practices of all parties for the last three elections: 2000, 2004, and 2006.

I say that because, as I mentioned earlier before the points of order came forward, we have filed an affidavit in Federal Court challenging Elections Canada. We are absolutely convinced that not only did we do nothing wrong in terms of the regional ad buys, which are the crux of this ruling by Elections Canada, but we engaged in practices common to all political parties.

As I have stated, as Mr. Reid and other members of the Conservative Party have stated in days and meetings past that we would be fully willing to engage in this discussion, this study of the advertising practices of our party, immediately if only the members of the opposition would agree to allow their election returns to be examined as well.

Let me say at the outset--

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Chair, how many meetings can we have in one meeting? I'm trying to listen to Mr. Lukiwski. I'm sure he's saying something very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

My apologies for not controlling the room.

Please, folks, I know discussions have to take place, and that's acceptable, but could we keep them quiet and keep them back.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

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

Thank you.

Let me say at the outset that we are not contending that any of the opposition parties did anything illegal--far from it, just the opposite. In our affidavit we do not make any claims or have any contention that the opposition parties did anything illegal. We are merely pointing out in our affidavit that they engaged in the same practices as we did. Those practices, as defined by Elections Canada--

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

That's not what Elections Canada said.

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

Are we going to go through this all the time? Do we have to get constant interruptions, or do I have a chance to speak to my motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.

Mr. Lukiwski has the microphone.

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

Thank you. I will buttress my remarks by some hard evidence to satisfy the concerns of Monsieur Proulx.

The fact of the matter is that we're not contending that any party in Parliament has done anything wrong, merely that all of us in all of our parties have engaged in the same practices as allowed by Elections Canada. The main crux of what--

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

That's not what Elections Canada says.

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

The crux of Election Canada's argument is that there was an advertising campaign that was national in scope, and it was therefore contrary to the rules as outlined by Elections Canada. I will demonstrate in a few moments why I believe that to be absolutely incorrect.

I think there's an overriding reason why we've had this motion come forward. Again, it's certainly no surprise to me. I don't think it's any surprise to any member of the Conservative Party. It is because, frankly, the opposition parties--in particular, mainly the Liberal Party--are trying to create a scandal where none exists. They're doing this for strictly partisan reasons to try to embarrass the government and to try to use it to their own political advantage.

This is certainly not the latest, but it certainly is one on a long list of attempts by the Liberals to again, as I phrase it, create a scandal where none exists. We've certainly seen that most recently in their attempts to somehow link Prime Minister Harper with the Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber affair.

I recall a number of days during question period when Liberal member after Liberal member after Liberal member stood in the House to try to connect the dots as best they could to say that there's clearly a connection. There was something going on in the Prime Minister's Office of Prime Minister Harper. He was in contact, they contended, they alleged, with Brian Mulroney or perhaps even with Karlheinz Schreiber himself. This was something they were absolutely adamant about.

Yet what happened? When the ethics committee decided to hold its own inquiry and call witnesses, the first of whom was Karlheinz Schreiber himself, I recall watching with great amusement as the Liberal Party brought in their hired gun, the opposition House leader, Mr. Goodale, to ask the big question of Karlheinz Schreiber: did you have any communication with Prime Minister Harper?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Tom, I suggest you listen. Don't check the hockey or the music.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to table a motion calling on the committee to proceed immediately to adopt...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, I'm sorry, Mr. Guimond. You cannot move a motion on a point of order.

Go on, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you again, Chair.

The point I was trying to make is that there have been continued attempts, primarily by the Liberal Party, to create a scandal where none exists. I was pointing out the most recent example prior to this, the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry by the ethics committee. When they brought Mr. Goodale in to ask the question directly of Mr. Schreiber--have you had any communication at any time with Prime Minister Harper or his office?--he said no. Here it was, the big moment when they're supposed to have the one piece of evidence that would link Mr. Schreiber and Prime Minister Harper's office, and of course the answer was no.

It struck me as very amusing, because Mr. Goodale, of course, in his past lives, has been a lawyer. I always thought this was one of the tenets, that any young law student, during his time in law school, was coached and instructed and advised never to ask a question to which he didn't know the answer. Yet here it was, the whole argument of the Liberal Party hanging on this one question, and the answer was a resounding no.

Since then, we've seen absolutely no attempts by the Liberal Party to try to link Mr. Harper, because there was no link to the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

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

On a point of order, how relevant is this, Mr. Chair?

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

I'll certainly give you the relevance, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I was going to ask Mr. Lukiwski to focus a little bit, but I do believe it's still relevant. I appreciate the point.

Mr. Lukiwski, please focus.

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

I will absolutely give the relevance to this, because as I mentioned earlier in speaking to this motion, it appears that the motion of Madam Redman is the next in a long list of attempts by the Liberal Party to create a scandal where none exists.

I was pointing out that the Karlheinz Schreiber and Brian Mulroney example is just one of the many examples they're using time and time again to try to create something to embarrass the government for their own political reasons. That's all this is. If it weren't, Chair, I would submit to you that if they were absolutely pure in their motives, they would have no difficulty in accepting the motion I brought forward.

Again, I will repeat, we could immediately begin the examination of our books as long as the opposition parties would agree that an examination of their own advertising practices and an examination of their own books from previous elections be done at the same time. We could do this today. We could start bringing a witness list forward. We could start determining exactly how we are going to do it.

It makes perfect sense to most Canadians that, as they contend, if there is nothing wrong with the practices in which they have engaged in elections past, then they should not fear having an examination of their books. Why wouldn't they have an examination of their books?