Evidence of meeting #14 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Okay, but here's the problem with that. The chair is not allowed to put a motion on the floor; only Mr. Lukiwski can. I'm just seeking the sense of the committee. I don't see that there's a motion forward. It was just a request.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
So that means the default position is to just carry on.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you.
So my point, going back to the protocol that we followed provincially, is that it mirrored the protocol established federally, and as indicated in the guidelines set out by Elections Canada, this is totally appropriate. The guidelines have since been changed, apparently, to that one section about national versus local advertising, but it was not changed until after the 2006 election.
If perhaps—and I don't know this to be true, but hopefully we'll find this out in our court case, and we could have been able to find this out had this committee decided to accept my motion and we could then conduct our own investigation. But perhaps Elections Canada simply erred and said, “Well, we have the guidelines in place now and we'll apply them to 2006.” If in fact that was the case, and I'm not suggesting it was, clearly there was a simple error, because the guidelines were quite clear in 2006 that candidates could determine if they wanted to use advertising that was local or national in content.
In the event that someone used a national ad—and I would suggest that the majority of ads purchased or entered into by all candidates of all political parties would be national in scope—the findings of Elections Canada apparently are that this money, the amount of money that a local candidate paid to run an ad promoting the national party, should be applied to the cap, the national advertising cap. Nowhere in Elections Canada's guidelines does it state that is the case.
In fact, just the opposite, the guidelines quite clearly state that a candidate could choose to run either a locally based ad, an ad promoting their own candidacy, or they could choose to run an ad that is national in context. So if they ran national ads and appropriately identified themselves and all their agents and followed the proper authorization requirements and protocol, then they could do so. That would be their choice—no conflict there; no untoward activity; certainly no violation, in my view, of the Elections Act.
Similarly, there's absolutely nothing that prevents the national party from paying for those ads, as long as they transferred it into the party. In other words, you can't just have the national ad be invoiced from the local candidate and have the national party pay for it directly. They have to transfer funds, after the invoice has been paid, to the local campaign, hence the in and out.
I've spoken of this before. Some people may suggest that's not appropriate, because at the end of the day you would have candidates who were able to receive a rebate for money that they really didn't...well, I guess they spent it, but they didn't really lose. In other words, they netted out revenue neutral, but they still got a nice healthy 60% rebate on that amount.
It would be interesting to find out, in the case of my members opposite, what happened when the candidates received those rebates. Did they then make a donation in the exact amount back to the national party? In that case, the national party wouldn't be out any money.
1:55 p.m.
An hon. member
That's an in and out and in and out.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes.
I don't know. I'd like to ask that question, but unfortunately, members of this committee, in the opposition ranks at least, don't want those questions to be asked. They don't want any examination of their books so that we can ask those questions of their officials.
I would love to be able to ask the executive director of the Liberal Party of Canada what happened with the rebates: “After all your candidates received these rebates for money that was transferred in from the national party to their campaigns, did they return that money to the national party or did they keep it?” Interesting question, Mr. Chair.
Unfortunately, thanks to the efforts of my colleagues across the table, it appears we're not going to be able to ask those questions—at least in committee. I am hopeful that when we go to the court case that will hear our arguments, those questions will be asked and we'll be able to get some definite answers, but I would like to be able to discuss that here.
I'm quite sincere when I say I would love to have this discussion at this committee, and I just don't know why we are seeing and encountering such resistance from the members opposite. Mr. Chair, it certainly would appear that we have some members who, for their own reasons, don't want these discussions to be held. Even though I have consistently stated that there appears to be nothing wrong—on the surface, at least—with the protocols and procedures that the members opposite followed during the 2006 election, there has to be a reason they are so resistant to my motion. There has to be a reason.
We've already talked about the obvious ones, that they just don't want a discussion to determine the facts; they want headlines and media reports that the Conservative Party is under investigation. Those are the obvious reasons. But could there be other reasons, Mr. Chair? Could there be things we don't yet know about the financial transactions of the members opposite, which they're fearful will be discovered? It's an obvious question that I'm sure many people have asked themselves already: what are they hiding? But I guess the only way they could distance themselves from those suggestions of impropriety would be to agree with my motion.
If, for example, a groundswell of opinion starts, suggesting that the opposition members have something to hide, that they are afraid of opening up their books because they have something to hide, one would think that if they had nothing to hide, they would welcome a suggestion to prove it at committee. Mr. Chair, I find it somewhat surprising that they haven't taken that approach, that we are the only party voluntarily suggesting we open our books because, clearly, we have nothing to hide. I think that's quite obvious.
Perhaps, through reflection and my continued arguments, the members will start to realize that it might be in their best political interests to accept my motion. It doesn't appear that way yet, Mr. Chair, but I know the members opposite, generally speaking, have some political acumen and can understand the politics of this. I'm sure that if public opinion started veering against them, taking the view that the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc were hiding something and didn't want their books examined, their position on this motion would change, and would change rapidly.
I'm still hoping, quite frankly, that it might occur, Mr. Chair. There is some precedent for it. We've seen, particularly with the Liberals, their opinion on many issues changes frequently, particularly Mr. Dion's opinion on various issues. He'll say one thing one day and another day he'll change his mind. I'm hoping that will be the case here, that members will ultimately come to the realization that it would be in their best interests to have this full, complete examination of all books, of all parties' election practices.
I don't know if they'll ever fully come around to my way of thinking, but again, if I were in their position and I firmly believed we had nothing to hide but that my political opponent had something to hide, I'd say, “Hey, let's get it on. Let's agree to the motion. Let's get the Conservatives and all their officials and all their books in front of this committee so we can have a complete and fulsome examination and discussion of the books, because it doesn't matter if they examine ours, we've done nothing wrong and we have nothing to hide.” So at the end of the day, if they truly believe we're the only ones who have contravened the Elections Act, they should be welcoming this motion. They should be embracing this motion.
But I don't see that. I see nothing of the sort. I see continued resistance. And all that's going to happen at the end of the day is that ultimately the courts will determine whether or not the Conservative Party of Canada and local Conservative Party candidates were in violation, whether or not there was any electoral wrongdoing. We clearly welcome that.
One of the reasons we wanted to bring this court action forward is that a lot of our candidates were having their election returns withheld. We don't want that delay. We want election returns to be repaid to the candidates so that it will go into their election campaign accounts, because we know we're going to have another election sometime in the near future and we don't want any of our candidates unduly confined by lack of money that should be coming their way, a legitimate election return. In some cases, it's tens of thousands of dollars.
There's another question I'd like to ask Elections Canada, because I honestly don't know the answer to this. With the candidates in question, have their entire election rebates been withheld or just the portion that Elections Canada has deemed to be inappropriate?
In other words, we all know in campaigns there are many expenses. We have to pay for campaign offices and signs, and sometimes we even have to pay for staff if we can't find enough volunteers. There are personal expenses of the candidates. The limit in a lot of cases—I can only use my own as an example—is roughly $70,000. That's the campaign expense limit that I had in the 2006 election. We maxed out, so our campaign return then would be—was it 60% back in 2006?—roughly $38,000.
What I don't know is whether Elections Canada is holding back the entire return because of perhaps a $2,000 invoice that might be in question, or are they only holding back that invoice and the rebate based on that invoice? I'd like to know that. But if they're in fact holding back the entire amount, that's a significant amount of money that our candidates are at risk of not even having available for the next election campaign. That's why we want to get this court case dealt with as quickly as possible.
If we could get this committee to agree to my motion, we would then be able to get all the facts, the financial disclosures, out and examined thoroughly by this committee. I would like nothing more than for the committee to come up with a consensus report that says we have done a thorough examination of all parties, we have found that there are really no inconsistencies or contraventions, and we would strongly encourage Elections Canada to reconsider their position of not releasing the election refunds for these candidates in question.
It doesn't appear that's going to be the case.
Maybe that's the motivation, Chair. We talked earlier about what the motivation is behind the opposition's refusal to accommodate and to agree with my motion. Maybe that's it; maybe they think that by stonewalling they can actually cause Elections Canada to delay in paying the election rebates back to our candidates.
I don't know. We're just spitballing here, but there has to be something over there, because I can't see a legitimate reason for their continued opposition to my motion.
I've given several examples to date, and I'll give several more, but all of them underscore the very primary reason for the motion. It is clear that other parties and other candidates engaged in the same practices we are being accused of doing, for which we are being accused of crossing the line with respect to election financing rules.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and the very easy way to determine this, to substantiate my claims, is to have a full examination in this committee. Again, for the life of me, I can't see why there's such resistance. As Ms. Redman and many others have stated on various occasions, the motion Ms. Redman forwarded was first put forward in August 2007, and here we are in February 2008.
We would have been done months ago. We would have been done months ago, if only the opposition had agreed to a very simple, respectful, and obvious request in a motion to examine all the books equally.
Chair, I've talked to a number of people about this issue and have asked for an opinion. I asked, “What do you think about this? Do you think it would be fair and appropriate to have a full examination of all parties and their financing?” Invariably the answer comes back, “Yes, I do.”
At the same time, there are those, quite frankly, who say, “Just a minute now; clarify something. Are you saying that the opposition wants to investigate your books, but they don't want to investigate their own?” When I say, “Yeah, that's what's happening,” they're the ones who ask what's going on, “What are they hiding?”
The more we can get the story out and before the public, certainly the better it would be for us politically. The strategy the opposition is employing here, to refuse and vote against our motion to examine all books and all parties' election spending practices, will, I think, ultimately backfire because most Canadians, being fair-minded individuals, will come to wonder why not just open up their books if they have nothing to hide. What do they have to fear?
That way, if the Conservatives have in fact done something inappropriate, if the Conservatives, as the opposition alleges, have in fact inappropriately or illegally spent money where they shouldn't have, that will come out in cross-examination.
So what do they have to hide? What do they have to fear? If I were in their position, I would embrace a motion such as mine. If I were fully convinced that we had done nothing wrong, but I was also convinced that the opposition had done something wrong, I would be the first one to say, “Let's get it on; let's examine this.”
In quick order we'll dispense with our party's books, because it's there in black and white. There is nothing wrong; we complied completely with the Elections Act. But it will give me the opportunity to compare in a transparent fashion our books with the opposition's, and I contend that if the opposition did something wrong, there can be no better clarity, to exemplify the differences, than to compare those two returns side by side. I would welcome that motion.
Yet what do we hear from members of the opposition? Total resistance. They are suggesting that the only way to get to the bottom of this would be to investigate solely and individually the Conservative Party.
It is certainly not the case, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I suggest to you that all members here take a good, hard look at what they hope to accomplish by these actions. Do they believe that by refusing to allow a thorough inspection of their own election financing and their protocols they are doing themselves any favours politically? I would argue that they are not. Ultimately, Chair, the Canadian public is going to see through that and ask the very basic questions: “If they have nothing to hide, why are they resisting? If they have nothing to hide, why don't they just get it on and get their books out on the table and be done with it?”
They don't take that approach, Chair. I'm sure we'll hear from them their own spin after this, saying that it is the Conservatives who are at fault here. I remind members opposite that we are the only party willing to put our books on the table. We are the only party welcoming an examination of our books.
If we had something to hide, do you honestly think, Chair, that we would be bringing something forward to a federal court of law? If you think the examination by members of this committee would be thorough, I would suggest to you that a judge is going to be ten times as thorough. There will be examination of minutiae that members of this committee could probably not even comprehend.
If we had anything to hide, we would not have brought forward a case. We would not have brought forward a legal action to defend ourselves from what we believe to be a flawed argument by Elections Canada. It's pure and simple. Think about it, Chair. Why else, unless we believed ourselves to be totally innocent in this matter, would we have brought forward a legal action? Why?
No other party would do that. You don't bring more attention to yourself if you know you're guilty. All you would do is put out political spin and deny, deny, deny. You certainly wouldn't have gone to the extent of asking a federal court to examine our books. We're doing it because we know we have done nothing wrong, and this is our defence.
If we had something to hide, if we felt we were in violation of the Elections Act, do you think we'd be coming forward with a legal action? Of course not.
You can't spin an argument when it's in black and white. You have election guidelines that are quite clear, which Elections Canada has put out. We have campaign books that are quite clear. They show all financial transactions; they show transfers between candidates; they show expenditures by candidates and the national office; and they show the relationship between the two.
All these will be presented in Federal Court. No stone will be unturned; no transaction will be unexamined. If we had something to hide, why would we be doing this? It doesn't make sense. We're doing it because we know we are in the right. We know that at the end of the day the Federal Court will agree with our position. That's why we're bringing this court case forward. It's that and of course to get the money back to our candidates that they rightfully deserve, and to do so in a fashion that would hopefully get them their money back as quickly as possible so they can use that money, which is rightfully theirs, in the next election campaign.
Chair, we're willing not only to have our books examined in a federal court of law, but we're also ready to have our books examined by this committee. There's one little caveat. Let's bring forward the books of the other parties and we'll get it on.
Again, Chair, that doesn't seem to be the position of the members opposite. Why not? Well, again, they have no interest in examining their own books at this committee. It's because I'm certain, at least I'm hopeful, they've not done anything wrong. I would like to think there's no wrongdoing on behalf of my colleagues or their parties who are sitting opposite me at this table.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
History tells us differently, but maybe not this one.
I'm sorry, I was thinking out loud again, Chair.
Go ahead.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Chair, I think again the motivation is not that they have anything to hide, but simply that they want to try, to the best of their abilities, to use this in a political smear campaign against the Conservatives, pure and simple; it's nothing more than that.
What's at stake here? What's going to happen now that we have this apparent impasse? Well, we're going to keep reading into the record examples of candidates and members of Parliament from the last campaign and other campaigns to further demonstrate the fact that this so-called illegal in-and-out advertising scheme, as characterized by my friends opposite, is nothing more than the practice followed by all political parties.
Perhaps we can give another example. There are so many here from the NDP, but let's go to the Bloc for now. I know this will appeal to Monsieur Godin, and I know my Bloc colleagues are feeling left out, Chair, so let's use an example of theirs.
Here's a sitting MP, Christiane Gagnon. Let's look at this. The Bloc party, the national party, invoiced Ms. Gagnon $16,642.77. The candidate paid it. Then the Bloc sent another cheque to reimburse the candidate in the amount of $17,000 about two months later.
Like the NDP, this Bloc candidate actually made money on that transaction, being invoiced slightly over $16,600 and receiving about $17,000 in return—the in and out. So while the Bloc candidate was able to claim that $16,000 as an election expense, it really didn't cost her any money, because the Bloc, the national party, reimbursed it, and in fact reimbursed it with a few hundred dollars to spare.
How can that happen? Well, it happens very simply because it's allowed; it is allowed under the rules. Under the Elections Canada guidelines, unrestricted transfers from the federal party to the candidate are allowed.
I would suggest that once again we have an example, now from the Bloc Québécois, in which they engaged in the same in-and-out process or protocol, as did the NDP and as did the Liberal Party and as did the Conservative Party.
In the case of another Bloc MP, Marc Lemay, the Bloc Québécois invoiced Monsieur Lemay for $29,285.75, dated May 24, 2004. This was during the 2004 election. A few months after that, in October, the Bloc sent a cheque back to Monsieur Lemay for $29,200.
If I were Mr. Lemay, I'd be cranky; they ripped him off for $85. In other words, he paid $85 more on an invoice than the Bloc paid him back. I would be absolutely enraged and incensed if I were that candidate. Some candidates got $200 more. They made out like bandits. But poor Monsieur Lemay actually got $85 docked. Maybe he was a naughty boy; maybe he said something. I don't know what happened. All I know is, he didn't make out as well as some of the other candidates.
Perhaps Monsieur Lemay didn't even recognize that. I am doing this as a public service to Monsieur Lemay.
2:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Now he knows that he has $85 that he can perhaps recover from the Bloc, because it seems they stiffed him, and I don't know why. Nonetheless, Chair, the point is that here is yet another example of the so-called in-and out-transfer, this in-and-out advertising scheme.
Once again, if it was not illegal for Monsieur Lemay to engage in such a practice, why would it be illegal for any other candidate to engage in such a practice? I really don't know, but perhaps we can find out.
There are many other examples, which we'll get into, perhaps in the next few hours, of different advertising. We're talking primarily now about electronic advertising: radio and television ads. But there are many other forms of publicity that are considered to be advertising, of course, that Canada is engaged in. Some may be lawn signs; some may be pamphlets. There are many other forms of media. Some may be putting information on a website and having to pay somebody to perform that task; some may be paying for a speech writer.
In any event, Chair, I would suggest that in all cases the moneys expended would be to benefit the local candidate. Yet if the national party is in effect paying for that expenditure, and if Elections Canada has ruled that because the Conservative Party engaged in that practice the money should be considered national, why is it not the case with other candidates?
The reason, of course, that I'm concentrating primarily on radio and television ads is that I would suggest probably 70% to 80%, if not 90%, of the ads that were run with these candidates would be national in content. In other words, the national party came up with this idea, established the protocol, and did the invoicing. All the invoicing came from the national party, or in some cases from the local EDA association, but they in turn were reimbursed nationally.
So at the root of all this it was the national parties that were coordinating this action. They would invoice, and I'm sure a large percentage of the ads run would be national. In other words, the national party was saying, “I'm going to pay for these ads. You're going to be invoiced, but you're going to be reimbursed. We're going to invoice you, we're going to reimburse you, and we're going to run a national ad. We'll tag your name on it, but we're going to run a national ad.”
That is the argument Elections Canada is making when they say that if you run a national ad and the national party is paying for it indirectly through this in-and-out transfer process, then you should consider that to be part of the national advertising cap. That's their argument.
We disagree with that argument, because quite clearly, based on the information and the testimony I've given this afternoon, candidates and parties were well within their rights to do exactly what we've done. But the argument from Elections Canada is that you can't do that; it has to be considered part of the national cap.
If the argument is true, and if that argument has substance, then why doesn't it hold true in examples for other candidates in other parties? Why? You simply can't answer that, Chair.
Therefore, I contend, Mr. Chair, and I continue to argue, that it's because, I believe, Elections Canada erred. They made perhaps an honest error, but an error nonetheless. That's why I'm simply so anxious to have a fulsome discussion of the advertising practices of not only our own party but all political parties on this very issue. If we did, I think we could find out quite quickly that all parties engaged in similar activities, and, Chair, did so fully within electoral rules. And that's the key here.
If we truly want to have a fulsome examination, we have to take a look at all of the advertising practices, thereby requiring an opening up of the books of all political parties, because part of the case we have advanced is that not only did we do nothing wrong, and not only were we fully in compliance with electoral rules, but we did nothing, Chair, that the other political parties did not do themselves.
I would think that by anyone's standards a full examination and side-by-side comparison of all the parties is the only way to determine whether there were appropriate spending practices by the Conservatives or appropriate spending practices by any of the opposition parties.
If we had that fulsome discussion and complete examination here at the committee level and it were determined that only the Conservative Party had violated the Elections Act and the spending practices as outlined by Elections Canada, I would be the first one to say you are right, and we are wrong, and we will bear the full consequences of our actions.
But I am absolutely confident, Chair, that this is not the case. So confident am I that I brought this motion forward, which states that we will voluntarily bring forward and open up our books and provide to this committee all witnesses whom they wish to speak to. We will do that willingly and voluntarily and will do it immediately, with just one small condition: that the opposition parties do the same.
Yet what do we hear? No, it's not a good idea. We have yet to hear why it's not a good idea; that's something I'm still waiting to hear. And—I mentioned this a little earlier, Chair—the only reason I've heard yet from any member of the opposition as to why they're against this motion is that they say only the Conservative Party has been identified by Elections Canada as being in violation.
That presumes and presupposes that anything Elections Canada rules is correct. If you take that to its logical conclusion, it would mean, if any organization such as the RCMP or a city police force charged an individual with a violation of law, that if they charged him or her saying “it's wrong”, it has to be wrong.
Well, that's not the way society works, Chair. There are recourses to that. Anyone, any citizen of this country, is allowed to defend him or herself, and that's what we are doing in this case. The argument that “the reason we're not allowing our books to be examined is that we weren't found to be at fault by Elections Canada” doesn't hold much water with me. We reject Elections Canada's arguments.
We are prepared to defend our position in Federal Court and we are even more fully prepared to defend our position and to discuss our position and all of our advertising practices here at this committee. We don't have to wait months for a Federal Court case. We can get this on right now.
Whether or not the examination by committee members would be as thorough as that of a judge or lawyers involved in a Federal Court case, I don't know, but at least we would be able to get the examination started now.
I continue to make the point, Chair, that we are the only party that has willingly supported examination of our books. The other parties are saying they'll gladly examine the Tories' books, but no, they don't want anybody looking at their books.
What do they have to hide, for God's sake? I don't think they did anything wrong, so they should have nothing to hide, Chair.
We have a purported or attempted smear campaign going on here, but that doesn't change the facts that in previous elections members of the Bloc Québécois, of the NDP, and of the Liberal Party engaged in exactly the same practices and followed the same protocols as the Conservative Party. Of that there can be no question, absolutely no question.
Let's give another example. This would be of a candidate with whom I am unfamiliar. It's a Liberal Party candidate by the name of Beth Phinney. The Liberal Party invoiced candidate Phinney a total of $5,000 on June 16, 2004. Then they repaid the candidate with a $5,000 cheque, which the candidate deposited on July 8, less than a month later.
In and out; the same thing: they claimed the reimbursement and pocketed the reimbursement, but it didn't really cost them any money. There was a transfer between the federal party and the candidate—back and forth, in and out—exactly the process the Liberals are accusing us of doing and stating that it is illegal.
How can it be illegal? How can we have contravened electoral laws when they are doing exactly the same thing? It just doesn't make any sense.
In politics, Chair, I suppose things don't have to make sense. In a political environment such as this, I suppose all that matters is that the opposition have an opportunity to try to create scandals where no scandal exists. Perhaps the only thing that matters in the minds of the opposition members is that they create opportunities for themselves to discredit the government—not on substantive matters, not on policy matters, but on spurious, made-up, unfounded, baseless allegations, to try to get themselves some political smack, to try to increase their chances in a federal election.
In other words, Chair, there is an old political axiom that says: governments aren't elected; they're defeated. Generally speaking governments, history would prove, were defeated based on two things: one is fiscal and financial mismanagement; the other is scandal.
Well, they can't get us on financial or fiscal mismanagement, Chair, but they certainly could try to create a scandal. In the 2006 election, we didn't have to create anything. There was something called the sponsorship scandal that was right in front of all Canadians to see. There was no creation of that scandal.
But since that time; since the Liberal Party saw how deeply that scandal affected their chances of re-election; since they saw the damaging effects of the sponsorship scandal; once they found out how Canadians reacted to the fact that the Liberal Party was found to be the perpetrators behind the largest political scandal in Canadian history and once they understood that, Chair, they took it upon themselves to try to create scandals for the Conservative Party. They're not scandals that actually exist, but scandals that they are trying to create because they know how damaging a scandal can be to a political party.
They have nothing on the fiscal management side. Canadians, I would suggest, are fairly happy with the more than $60 billion in tax cuts they received last October from this government. They're happy with the direction the Prime Minister and this government are taking this country in. They're happy with the fiscally responsible manner in which this government is taking care of business. So they really can't attack us there, Chair, because it wouldn't get them very much, wouldn't get them very far. They can't score any political points on that, so the only thing they can do is try to create some scandals.
Granted, Elections Canada said that they found fault, and they made a ruling that the Conservative Party violated the Elections Act in the 2006 election by overspending, referring to this national advertising cap again. But the rationale behind their ruling was the one that I keep going back to here. They said that because of this transfer, whereby local candidates receive money from the national party and put forward a national ad, that should be considered part of the national advertising campaign, and not part of a local candidate's campaign.
That is the contention of Elections Canada. I have demonstrated with many examples today, Chair, that other parties have done exactly the same thing, and yet they were not found to be at fault. You can't have it both ways. If one party is in violation for following a protocol that Elections Canada says is wrong, then all parties have to be treated equally, and we haven't seen that.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I would just caution you, Mr. Lukiwski. I am starting to hear some repetition. I understand that some points have to be made, but there is some repetition.
I'm on page 12 of my own notes, so just focus it in a little bit. That would be great.
Thank you.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
In any event, Chair, some things, as I mentioned earlier, certainly bear repeating—
2:40 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes. I can't hear enough of some of them.
2:40 p.m.
Tom. Lukiwski
—and that would be my point to you.
I know that if you take a look at—
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Chair, I know that my friend there was so anxious to participate in the discussion that he involuntarily addressed me rather than going through you.
I welcome all comments from my colleagues. I would more than welcome comments from my colleagues in an official capacity, should we be having this discussion at the committee level with all parties participating. That, however, would require that they agree to the motion to allow all parties to forward their books, to discuss fully, not just amongst committee members but with Elections Canada officials and others, the practices they employed during the 2000, 2004, and 2006 elections—a legitimate request, yet one that is being totally ignored by members opposite, again, for apparently purely political reasons.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I would suggest that if we truly wanted to inform Canadians as to the methodology and the processes that all Canadians followed and engaged in during elections, we would have no difficulty in putting forward a cogent and responsible opinion from this committee, certainly within a few weeks. If we'd have voted ourselves the full examination of all our practices, citing examples, giving appropriate responses to questions from other committee members, we could have this matter dealt with probably within a couple of weeks.
The reason I say that is because I don't see how we could possibly carry on an examination longer than that, simply because the practices of all parties are similar—in fact, almost identical. How could we go beyond, say, three or four meetings, which is six to eight hours of full examination, if in fact it is first discovered that the practices that all parties engaged in are the same?
I've given examples here, time and time and time and time again, that they are the same. So if they're the same, then the conversation could really get focused and say, “All right, we've all done the same thing. Are those practices consistent with electoral guidelines, or are they inconsistent?” That's the only question, at that point in time, we would have to consider as a committee.
So, again, I fail to see why the resistance from the opposition. If they actually want to get to the bottom of what they consider to be inappropriate and illegal election practices from the Conservatives and if they also agree that their party is above reproach, why don't they just allow the motion to pass? Why don't they just allow a fulsome examination? It shouldn't take them very long, if they're right, to prove their case.
I would suggest to you that will not occur. That agreement from my colleagues opposite will never come forward, because they don't want that examination. Why? Well, because at the end of the day it would be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, certainly to the satisfaction of this committee, that there's no untoward activity, no improper or illegal activity, with respect to election financing by the Conservative Party of Canada.
They don't want that story. Why in the world would they want a story that says “Conservatives vindicated”? They don't want that.
They just want a story that gives the impression, at the very least, that the Conservative Party has done something illegal, something wrong. Well, we totally reject that. We know that we have done nothing untoward. We know we have not broken any elections laws or guidelines. I've demonstrated that time and time again. I will continue to read into the record other examples. But the opposition, of course, can't accept that. That's simply not good enough for them from a political perspective. To justify their political agenda, they have to try as hard as they can to do whatever they can to cast aspersions on the Conservative Party, to try to smear the Conservative Party. Therefore, they don't want anything to do with a full disclosure, a full investigation of all parties, because they absolutely know that we would be proven to be innocent, that we have done nothing wrong.
But I think it goes beyond that. Consider this: many times, unfortunately—we've heard this before—in politics, perception is reality. I think that was actually first coined by a former Liberal senator, Senator Keith Davey, that in politics, perception is reality.
The opposition members are trying to create the perception that the Conservative Party did something wrong. If they were successful in creating that perception, they would have succeeded in their goal. So it doesn't really matter to them what the final answer is. They're convinced that if they're able to get the Conservatives, and only the Conservatives, at this committee to answer questions about their election financing practices, that would be the perception, that only the Conservatives had done anything wrong. Therefore, they don't want anything to do with an examination of their own books, because even if they were found to be totally in compliance—
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Excuse me, Mr. Lukiwski.
Colleagues, for various health reasons, we're getting new refreshments in here. Our clerks have been sitting for just about the same time as a flight to England. I don't want anybody getting clots. We're going to suspend for a few minutes so people can take care of any stretching or whatever else they need to do.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Just before we broke, we were talking about perception versus reality and how clearly this is an attempt by opposition members to create a perception that the Conservative Party did something wrong when, in fact, that is absolutely false and baseless. We have done nothing wrong.
I'd like to come back to try to determine the basis of which Elections Canada said that we were at fault, because this is extremely important. We want to make sure that everyone has a full comprehension of this. Sometimes it seems that when you're talking about the complexities involved and the relationships between a national campaign and a local campaign, people's eyes start to glaze over and they don't understand.
As simply as I can, the contention of Elections Canada was that local candidates were funded by the national campaigns to run national ads. And they've said that's wrong. And on the surface I can see how somebody could accept that argument.
If the national campaign is giving money to a local candidate and the local candidate in turn runs a national ad, I could certainly see how Elections Canada could make the argument that you can't do that, except that you can. That is within the guidelines of Elections Canada.
Maybe those rules have to be changed, but it is allowable. Let me give you an example of another party that did exactly that and were not found to be in violation. This occurred during the 2004 election and it concerns the Liberal Party of Canada again.
I know my colleague opposite, Mr. McCallum, is new to this committee. He is sitting in to give one of his colleagues a bit of a break so I don't want him to feel that I'm ignoring the Liberals. I want to make sure that he understands I'm being as fair as I can in pointing out deficiencies in the arguments of all political parties opposite. So this is mainly for the benefit of our newest member to this committee. Hopefully he'll stick around for the next two or three hours so I can again try to convince him, as I have other members, that their position is untenable and in fact is wrong.
But let me just give this example because I think it's one that really speaks to the inconsistencies of the position taken by Elections Canada. Let's go over this again.
Elections Canada's argument is that because the Conservative Party transferred money to a local candidate and the local candidate in turn ran an ad that was national in content, that was wrong, because that money, rather than being claimed by the local candidate, should have been claimed by the national party and it would have put them over their national cap. Okay, that's their argument.
We say that is not only a false argument, but is also an argument that flies in the face of the guidelines put out by Elections Canada. It also is inconsistent because other parties have done exactly the same thing.
Here is the latest example. I think this was a good one. In 2004 a Liberal ad appeared in The Edmonton Journal on Sunday, June 27. Now, the content of the ad, except for the name of the candidates, was entirely national. In fact, the ad had a big picture of Paul Martin and it promoted the Liberal Party of Canada. It had the names of all candidates, but no pictures. There were no pictures of the local candidates whatsoever, only a picture of Paul Martin. It was a national ad. It listed: Anne McLellan, David Kilgour, Doug Faulkner, John Bethel, Bruce King, Maureen Towns, Neil Mather, Moe Saeed, Debby Carlson, Lyle Carlstrom, Duff Stewart, Joe Dion, Rick Bonnett, Peter Crossley.
It appears that all the Edmonton area candidates participated in this, paid for this, and they were able to claim their portion as a local campaign expense. The national party was never found at fault.
Elections Canada then said that what the national party did—this advertising campaign—was completely legitimate. Yet it is exactly that type of transaction that they are saying the Conservatives did, and it is not allowed. I mean, you can't have it both ways.
This was a regional ad. The content of the ad was absolutely national. There was no reference, outside of the name, to a local candidate or local campaign whatsoever, yet it wasn't found to be in violation of the Canada Elections Act by Elections Canada. You can't have it both ways.
At the time, of course, Anne McLellan was the Deputy Prime Minister.
We have a letter here from the director general of the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta, and it states:
During the past election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta transferred funds and/or paid for services in kind directly to the candidate on whose behalf you were acting as Official Agent.
In other words, the Liberal Party paid money to the local candidates so they could participate in this ad buy, which promoted the national party. It certainly can be argued that the national party paid for this ad. Yet, were they found at fault by Elections Canada? No. Elections Canada didn't find them to be in violation of the Canada Elections Act one bit. So my question is, if we were to be found in violation for doing the same thing, why weren't the Liberals found in violation of the Canada Elections Act for doing that? There is total inconsistency in the manner in which Elections Canada has ruled in this case, total inconsistency.
Once again I say that perhaps this practice of the national party of any political party sending money to local campaigns, having them run a national ad and claim it as an expense of their own, is something that should be examined and perhaps it should be stopped or at least altered somewhat. It's a legitimate point, and maybe that's something we should be discussing at this committee, but I don't see a rush to do that by the members opposite. I don't see a rush to do anything by the members opposite with respect to examining their own books.
I will agree, as I have done many times before, that in my estimation at least, what the Liberal Party did in this latest example I just gave you was absolutely 100% in compliance with Elections Canada regulations. It states so. It states that a local candidate can run either a local or a national ad. That's their decision. It also states that a national campaign can transfer, unrestricted, money to local candidates. That's within the guidelines, that's within the rules, and that's what happened here. The national Liberal Party of Canada, the national campaign, transferred money to local candidates, they used that money to put an ad in the paper that promoted the national party, and they weren't in violation. Elections Canada had no problem with that. Neither would I, because the rules are quite clear that it's allowed. Well, maybe we need to change the rules, but the fact of the matter is, in 2004 and in 2006, the rules hadn't been changed. That was allowed. So why have we been found in violation?
I think it truly has been just an honest mistake from Elections Canada's standpoint when they made this ruling, and I think if we were able to present that information and ask those questions of Elections Canada officials, we'd be in a better position to find out the rationale behind their rulings to begin with. Unfortunately, we're prevented from doing so because the members opposite won't agree to my motion.
It's very difficult. If we're making the argument that we have done nothing wrong, and making the argument that, to prove this, we have acted in exactly the same fashion as opposition members, how can we prove that, how can we demonstrate that, if the opposition members refuse to allow their books to be examined? We're saying, “Open up our books. Let's get at it.” But to absolutely prove, in a side-by-side comparison, that we're all engaging in advertising practices in the same fashion, we need to have some agreement from members opposite. We need them to be able to, as we have done, willingly and voluntarily allow their books to be examined. They just won't do it. So what else are we to take from this? Why do you think, frankly, they're engaged in this discussion right now?
For the life of me, I cannot see any position where I would ever agree to a motion that is so clearly designed for partisan motives from the opposition to go forward. I cannot, under any circumstances, see myself or any of my colleagues allowing that to happen, because it is just a sham. It is nothing more than a political sideshow.
If you want to get into this, let's get into it. Let's open up your books; we'll open up ours.
I'm sure, quite frankly, that when a list of witnesses had been developed, if there was any kind of discussion or vote as to who to bring forward first, the opposition members would use their powers, as a majority on this committee, to bring forward the Conservatives. I don't even have a problem with that as long as I had the ability to use examples from the opposition, to present and defend our position in our case. That's all I'm saying.
Yet even with that, we have the collective opposition saying, “No, I don't care how fair it is, I don't care how reasonable your argument is, I'm just not going to go along with it.” So no wonder we have some dysfunction going on here at this committee. We could get beyond this in a heartbeat if the opposition simply agreed to doing what they should agree to, which is to bring forward their own books, to agree with this motion.
If they don't, I'm afraid all we can do is to try to convince Canadians, through conduits such as media representatives who may be reporting on this and hopefully taking copious notes and using examples that I've been reading into the record, and to report to the Canadian public that in fact here's the story. As a famous old radio broadcaster would have said, “The true story, the untold story, page 2.”
But because this issue is fairly complex for a lot of people, they just don't understand. All they hear, many times, are the headlines. If somebody makes an accusation, it gets news, it gets coverage. If somebody accuses someone of a heinous crime, that gets headlines. Maybe three months later the charges are thrown out, but it doesn't matter; the headlines are what stick in the minds of many Canadians, and that's what the opposition is trying to do here.
What I'm attempting to do, quite frankly, is to demonstrate, from example to example to example, that the rulings that were levied against us are exactly the charges, or the levies, or the findings that should have been put towards the opposition parties as well, because if we were at fault, if we were in violation of the act, it is readily apparent that all of these parties should have been found in violation, but they were not.
3:05 p.m.
An hon. member
They're not guilty.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
And neither are we.
Mr. Chair, my colleague finally agrees with our position—
