Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 5th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Proulx.

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

I don't like being misquoted, Mr. Chair. Please ask the member across to quote me properly or not quote me at all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's my pleasure.

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

I will not quote, nor have I ever quoted. I have paraphrased the remarks by Monsieur Proulx and I will continue to do so to the chair. I will continue to do so because they were accurate.

That is the only defence that any member of the opposition parties has raised. As weak as it is, they're saying, “Well, Elections Canada said you did something wrong, so that's enough, that's all we need.” Well, you know, we've already proven that Elections Canada has been wrong before. We know that just because somebody alleges wrongdoing doesn't mean that wrongdoing existed. If we just took mere allegations as gospel, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, why do we need judiciary, why do we need courts? Let's just wait until somebody makes an allegation and say, well, dispense. We don't need lawyers, courts, or judges; an allegation is good enough. I know that for the lawyers sitting around this table that would be a terrible thing, because if you ever get out of this business and go back to being a lawyer, you'll need clients.

Mr. Proulx is sort of suggesting you don't need any clients because an allegation should suffice. You don't need to have a lawyer to defend yourself. You don't need a court to adjudicate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, I just want to caution everybody, I don't want this to get out of hand, if possible.

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

We're coming so close to the vote too, Chair. We're doing so well here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please. Mr. Lukiwski, please.

Let's try to keep everybody listening. I'm affording everybody the right to be heard, and Mr. Lukiwski needs to be heard.

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

Thank you very much.

In any event, I think it's quite obvious what needs to be done here, the acceptance by members opposite of the motion I've put forward that would allow us to fully examine this entire issue, but only if we're given the opportunity not only to fully examine the books of the opposition parties but to question the officials of the respective parties, who probably were the ones who put these advertising practices into effect.

I can tell you, because it's no secret, the regional media buys that the Conservative Party engaged in in 2006 were coordinated at the national campaign level. There's no secret. We fully admit that. And I am confident, I am sure that the same practices that were employed by opposition parties were all coordinated at the national campaign level. Local candidates don't have the time or, frankly, the expertise to put together a regional ad buy like this or enter into an agreement with the national party. That has to be coordinated by the people who run the national campaigns. That's quite obvious.

Let's have an opportunity, then, to speak to those people. Let's find out if they, for example, feel that they were in the right but the Conservative Party was in the wrong. Let the people who deal with these issues on a campaign-by-campaign basis enter that into testimony.

If the national campaign manager of the Liberal Party of Canada says, “Well, Mr. Lukiwski, you are wrong, and here's why: there are similarities, but there are differences as well, and here's the difference, and this difference is why you guys were in violation and we were not”, I can't have that discussion and he doesn't have the opportunity to make that claim, because the opposition won't let us bring him in as a witness, because we can't get access to their books.

I need to see the books to say, “Now, Mr. Executive Director, or Mr. National Campaign Director, your books indicate here's how you conducted yourself with respect to regional media buys. Here's the transfer process. Here's the in-and-out process. Explain yourself why, in your opinion, this is compliant with elections law and election guidelines.” Then I would ask the follow-up question: “Well, then, what is the difference, sir or madam, between your process and your protocol and ours?” I need to be able to ask those questions, but unfortunately, due to the resistance from members opposite, I can't. I simply can't.

I need to then be able to take the testimony provided me from election officials and by officials from each respective party and try to meld them together and to make some sense of this. I can only do that if I have the ability to do that. Right now, the opposition is not providing me or any member of the Conservative Party that ability. They are prohibiting us from gathering the necessary information to prove our case.

I said before, this appears more like a kangaroo court than any kind of real court. I can only state again that I think that's an accurate reflection of what's trying to be done here.

If we had an agreement amongst the members of this committee to go forward and approve the motion that I made at the last meeting of this House, we could begin examination as soon as possible. Obviously it wouldn't take place today, because this would be beyond the scheduled time for this committee meeting, but I'm quite sure that the examination could take place at the start of the next meeting, without question.

Our books are ready to go. If you agree to the motion—

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

We have some examples.

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

—we're here. We have examples not only of Liberal, NDP, and Bloc Québécois advertising. But I'm sure that their books are quite in order.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

They are.

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

Let us make one point. We're not asking to see the books of the parties to see how much money they have in the bank. We're just talking about documents relating to the 2000, 2004, and 2006 elections, a completely different set of books, because everyone knows that when political parties file their annual returns, there are two returns filed. One is an annual financial return, and another is an election return. We're just talking about the election returns. I'm not asking to see the books of the opposition parties other than their election books. That's all I'm asking for. That's all we've ever been asking for.

If there's any hesitation from members opposite that we're trying to use this motion to get into their day-to-day financial operations, it's absolutely not true. We're merely trying to determine the method under which these parties operated with respect to transfers of money and advertising content. That's all we're trying to do.

We contend that it's entirely appropriate for all political parties to transfer money from the federal party to the local candidate level, and after that transfer has been completed, it's entirely appropriate for the local candidate to determine what the content of their advertising should be. We further submit that it's entirely appropriate for the candidate to then claim that advertising expense as a local expense. Not only do we submit that, but Elections Canada states that is what must happen. So there's no disagreement amongst parties on that fact.

Chair, there is disagreement from Elections Canada on that fact, because that's where the rulings have come down. That's where they have stated that if you run a national advertisement at the local level and there's been a transfer of money from the national campaign to the local level, you can't claim it as a local expense; it has to be claimed as a national expense. How they came to that conclusion in light of the evidence I've entered into testimony already is beyond me. It's beyond my scope of comprehension. On one hand, I am quoting from documents issued by Elections Canada, yet the ruling from Elections Canada flies in the face of the testimony that I've already given. It flies in the face of the actual wording that Elections Canada wrote. Why the contradiction?

Again, I can only go back to what I've stated before. I think there's probably an honest mistake. I'd like to get to the bottom of it. I'd like to find out where the misinterpretation is. I've racked my brain trying to think about this. I cannot understand how they can make the ruling that they did in light of the evidence I have already quoted. This is evidence that comes from Elections Canada material. Elections Canada says it's entirely appropriate to act in the manner in which we acted, yet the ruling contradicts that. I can't understand it. I wish, Chair, that I had the opportunity to ask the appropriate questions to the appropriate officials so that I could make some sense out of this.

If the members opposite changed their minds, perhaps we could, but that appears unlikely, which takes me back once again to the question of motivation. What is the motivation of the members opposite by their abject refusal to allow this type of basic questioning to take place? What is it? Clearly it's political in nature. We have not heard anything to the contrary. We can only assume that for their own political purposes, for their own political reasons, the opposition wishes to oppose our motion and carry on with a charade, a sham, a kangaroo court type of approach to this. And that's okay. I understand that. I understand that completely. What I don't understand, in light of all of this testimony, is how they can continue to make any kind of relevant argument that we were wrong and they were right.

[An hon. member]

Well, they can't.

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

They have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary. We will continue to provide examples, Chair, that buttress our contention and our arguments that we acted in a similar fashion to members of the opposition, and if the members of the opposition were not found to be at fault, then clearly we cannot be either.

Chair, we've had many debates on this over the years, and I want to go back a number of years, because this is an issue that all parliamentarians have a direct interest in, obviously. We're all candidates at election time; we stop being members of Parliament and start becoming candidates. So there is clearly an interest of candidates in how election rules and guidelines are set and how they must be followed.

I'm going to refer to some quotes that have some local ties. They're from a former member of Parliament, who was actually an NDP member and who represented the riding I now represent. There's a further connection—not that it has any true relevance—in that I was very good friends with this member's daughter, as we went to high school together. Unfortunately, she died in a very tragic accident while parachuting, when her chute didn't open. She was a dear, dear friend of mine, so I can't think about this even today without some pretty strong feelings. Nonetheless, I use this example because of its relevance to my riding and given this member's seniority within Parliament.

Mr. Les Benjamin was a long-time member of this institution, and here's what he had to say in a debate, as taken from Hansard:

Some people, including one or two of my colleagues, have raised the matter of no limit on candidates in terms of the purchase of broadcast time. I am not too hung up on that one. I am not sure that there should be a limit. I think the state should intervene to the extent of limiting expenses and requiring disclosure of the sources of contribution. The state has a right to intervene because the public has the right to know, but

—and this is the important part, Chair, and I want to emphasize this—

how the candidate spends that money and on what he spends it surely should be his business and the business of his constituents and party organization. If he has a limit of $25,000 and the damn fool chooses to spend it all on television time, surely that is his business

[An hon. member]

Good point.

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

These comments were made over 30 years ago, but they just go to show, Chair, that these are exactly the types of issues that were debated in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, and now in the new millennium.

But how can we have a fulsome debate on these very fundamental issues so important to all of us as candidates without all of the information being provided? Again, that's the crux and genesis of my motion, that is, to allow this type of debate to take place at this committee. If this committee, Chair, is allowed to enter into that debate with all of the appropriate information provided to us, I would suggest that we would be providing a very valuable service, not only to parliamentarians but also to registered parties, candidates, and to Elections Canada itself.

But I suggest, as I've suggested before, Chair, that the denial of the information we need for a fulsome debate contradicts the sense of democracy we supposedly all share.

I again implore my colleagues opposite to reconsider their position with respect to this debate and the study. Once again, if they have done nothing wrong—and I see in my investigation that they have done nothing wrong, at least that's my interpretation—they should have no problem allowing their election books to be examined. The problem as I see it, however, is a political one. They are fearful that by their very books they will be reinforcing our argument that we did nothing wrong. I have to admit they're right. Their books would prove our innocence, if you want to phrase it in that manner—

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

The problem is they won't let them go.

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

—because we would be able to demonstrate clearly and categorically that the practices employed by the parties opposite were identical to the practices employed by our party.

So in effect they would be assisting us in our defence, and clearly that's not something the members opposite want to do. They want no part of that. They want to be able to sit back, throw rocks at our party, make wild-eyed accusations, and make contentions that the Conservative Party is the only party that has violated the Elections Act. Well, it's simply not true. All we're saying is that we want an opportunity to demonstrate that. By anyone's definition of fairness, impartiality—

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

Transparency.... I'm just here to help.

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

—transparency, and accountability, one would think.... Let's just make sure we all have the same information at our fingertips.

I think there's a decorum problem with my honourable colleague here, but he's far too big for me to give him a big slap.

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

If this keeps up we'll have to suspend.

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

Let me go on with a few other quotes from members past who weighed in on this issue of the appropriateness of candidates being able to run as either local or national.

Mr. Barnett J. Danson, a Liberal who represented York North, stated as follows:

I appreciate the argument that so long as total expenditure is limited, the candidate is free to spend it in any way he wishes. One type of campaign works well in one part of the country or in one city, and works differently elsewhere.

He's exactly right, and I stated that at the onset of my remarks in the meeting we had last Thursday. You must allow the candidate to determine what is in his or her best interests in terms of electability. In other words, what is the messaging that will help me get elected? If it is a message that promotes me as being a solid community leader who is worthy of your vote and that's the message that I think will get me elected, I should have the ability to do so. But if I think that promoting the national party or my leader is more effective, I should have the ability to do so.

Until 2006 that was the case. As I testified earlier this afternoon, the rules have now changed and local candidates can't promote the national party or their leader if they wish. But we were able to do that until and including the 2006 election. So this is not something unique to the election of 2006. This is something that parliamentarians have argued successfully, I would suggest, for years.

Let me give you another example from Mr. Terry O'Connor, a Progressive Conservative member who represented the riding of Halton. He stated as follows:

...public subsidies should not be related to any specific method of expenditure of the subsidies that is, the grant of public funds should have as few strings attached as possible....The legislation should not attempt to dictate how and when such funds should be used. It should leave to the candidate or party the greatest possible degree of freedom to decide, in their own hands and their own minds, how to expend the funds. Each candidate and each party knows best how to run the election.

He goes on to augment his argument with other quotes, but the point, quite simply, is that I don't believe you could find that at any time in history there hasn't been a consensus among candidates of all political stripes that the candidate, and the candidate alone, should be allowed to determine how best to use his or her funds in terms of advertising. And that is the issue we have before us. That is the contradiction, it seems, between the written election guidelines and the ruling of Elections Canada.

My point is that for the last 30 or 40 years, or perhaps even beyond that, all parliamentarians, or at least the vast majority of parliamentarians, have agreed that as candidates they should have the ability to advertise a national campaign-related theme if they so wish.

Elections Canada in the act, in the guidelines, and in the handbooks states similarly that candidates should have the ability to determine how they want to use those funds. As well, Elections Canada states unequivocally, in all of their guidelines and regulations, that a federal party, a national party, can transfer funds to a local candidate and the candidate must then claim that as a local candidate expense, regardless if they wish to use it to promote a national party or run a national ad.

That's what we did, Chair, and now that very procedure is under review by Elections Canada. That very process that, in written form, Elections Canada states is correct is now being challenged by the officials at Elections Canada. They're somehow saying, sorry, it doesn't apply to the Conservatives. You did it wrong.

But how did we do it wrong? Why?

I mean, there's nothing that I can read or that I can interpret on behalf of Elections Canada that even remotely suggests that we did anything wrong—except we had a ruling from Elections Canada. They have not explained themselves. All they have said, in my view, is that because federal funds or national party funds were transferred to a candidate who then ran a national ad, that should be considered a national expenditure. But their very words—in their very own guidelines, in the registered party handbook—say that it must be considered a local campaign expense.

I don't know if we have a situation where elections officials were unaware or didn't read or maybe misspoke, but there is a huge disconnect here. There is a huge variance of the words of Elections Canada officials and the writing of Elections Canada, and I'd like to get to the bottom of it. I'd like this committee to get to the bottom of it. But we cannot get to the bottom of it if this committee is restricted to only examining the campaign books of one party.

Chair, we have to have the ability to examine the advertising expenses, procedures, protocols, and books of all parties. I would argue that if we don't do that, there is a real danger for my colleagues opposite. If an incorrect ruling is made, unfairly prejudicing the Conservative Party of Canada, what is to say that at some point in the future, the same unfair, the same prejudicial treatment—and I say prejudicial with all due respect. I'm not saying that this was an obvious or deliberate attempt, but it prejudices the party—and the same misinterpretation is not applied to one of the other parties?

Mr. Chair, fair is fair. As a committee, I think it is incumbent upon us to determine the right way for political parties and candidates to conduct themselves. In light of the ruling—what I believe is an incorrect ruling—offered by election officials, we need to have some clarity on this issue. We have to have the ability to engage in this discussion. It may be a problem hoisted upon the Conservative Party today, but it may be a problem that the Liberals or the NDP or the Bloc Québécois experience tomorrow or in the next election.

I do not believe for a moment, Chair, that any of my colleagues here would want to see that situation take place. We know what's happening here. We know the games that are being played by members of the opposition parties here. Politics aside, I think every member of this committee believes that we need to get some clarity on this issue. We need to make sure that the rules are fair to every party and every candidate and are applied fairly and judiciously. If we don't have that, Chair, we run the risk of a far larger problem occurring than what we have before us today.

Again, I urge my colleagues, I implore my colleagues, to reconsider their position. I ask that they view this in as much of a non-partisan window as they possibly can. That may not be possible. I think it would behoove all of us, all of our parties and all of our constituents, to view this dispassionately, in a non-partisan manner, and eventually come to some conclusion.

As I said, Chair, if the conclusions, after a thorough examination by members of this committee, were such that in fact the ruling of Elections Canada was correct that there were improprieties or activities with respect to elections spending and that the Conservatives were at fault, I'd be the first one to say, hey, you're right, but at least we had an opportunity to examine it. I concur with the findings. I may not like them, but I concur, I agree, and we will certainly accept all of the consequences.

We're not being afforded the ability to have that type of examination. As Conservatives, we certainly have not been given the opportunity to bring forward the type of vigorous and spirited defence that we would like, simply because of the positions taken by members opposite.

They're continually stonewalling our attempts to actually get to the bottom of this by way not only of interpretation of the act but by way of comparative examination of party-to-party books. All we're suggesting is that we do hear, Chair—nothing more, nothing less. We're not trying to score political points on the opposition, as they apparently are on us. We're just trying to present our case. We will certainly be bringing our case forward in a very spirited manner when this case reaches the courts.

We will of course, at that point in time, have our legal experts, our lawyers, and people who are paid to represent us do just that before a judge, I assume, at some point in time in the future. I would like the ability and the opportunity, Chair, to do it at the committee level. I'd like to have the ability to raise some of these questions right now, right here.

Chair, we all know this: there are certain privileges that committees are afforded. So for anyone, for example, who says maybe that shouldn't be done, maybe that would be prejudicing one's own case in Federal Court, I must remind all members that testimony at the committee level would not be allowed in Federal Court. So in no way would we be prejudicing any testimony that will come forward at the court case that will be heard on this issue sometime in the future.

But what we could do, Chair, as a committee, at the end of our study and our investigation, is have the ability to present a report that I hope would say that after a thorough examination of the advertising practices of all political parties in the years 2000, 2004, and 2006, we have determined there have been no violations, that in our opinion there have been no violations of any electoral laws.

That's what I think the obvious conclusion would be after an in-depth committee study. I state that because of the very many reasons I have already identified in my testimony. There are many more, and we will get to those as well, but I think there would be an overwhelming case to be made for our position that there was no illegal or inappropriate activity by the Conservative Party of Canada or their candidates during the 2006 election.

Chair, if we are given that opportunity, if we are given the opportunity to bring this evidence forward, to ask witnesses to appear before this committee, to examine and cross-examine witnesses before this committee, then, Chair, I think we would be doing ourselves a great service. And Chair, I know the view I have is not shared—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we obviously have a division bell all of us were expecting.

There is no motion to adjourn, is there? No. The bells are sounding, colleagues. Pursuant to Standing Order 115(5), this committee must immediately suspend as members are called to the House, unless of course there is unanimous consent in the meeting to continue to sit here. Is there unanimous consent to sit?

The meeting is suspended.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could you please tell us how long after the vote you intend to resume?

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

Immediately.