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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Please, no.

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

My point is simply this. We seem to have two different standards here. You mentioned in some of your remarks earlier that it's quite obvious that we do have two different standards here, one for the opposition and one for the government.

As the opposition contends, investigation must mean you're guilty. Yet when the situation is reversed, if an investigation takes place of either an opposition party or an opposition member, that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they are guilty. It just means there is an investigation. You can't have it both ways, Chair. You cannot have it both ways.

At the risk of repeating myself, but it certainly bears repeating once again, the only reason this discussion is taking place is because there is a political vendetta and a political smear campaign being orchestrated by all opposition parties. Why shouldn't they? It's certainly good politics if they can get the attention of the national media. It's certainly good politics back at their home ridings to be able to point fingers at the Conservative Party and say, “You see? They're under investigation; we always told you they were corrupt.” But that's all it is, Chair, is good politics. There is no basis in fact. There's no basis in fairness. It is only politics at its purest and most partisan sense.

That's why, Chair, we need to take the approach as offered by my motion. If in fact the Conservative Party of Canada has done anything untoward in the 2006 election, we're more than willing to allow that study, that examination, to take place, but on one condition: that all parties offer their books for examination themselves. It was apparent in the words of the opposition members in yesterday's news conference that they don't think they did anything wrong. They continually stated that since only the Conservative Party is under investigation--

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On a point of order, I'm wondering if you could tell the committee, and if the clerk may also confirm this or if the clerk would agree, whether the standing committee that is meeting now, that we're sitting in now, has in fact received, as a committee, the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. In other words, is the committee in possession of that second report that you were to bring before the committee? Have we received the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

We have received it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Again, let's make sure we're all quite clear on this very important point--

[An hon. member]

Perhaps you should start over.

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

If opposition parties are of the view that only the Conservatives have somehow breached elections campaign financing laws and they then have nothing to hide, they should then welcome the fact and the opportunity to begin an investigation immediately. Yet that's clearly not the case.

I kept asking in Tuesday's meeting, Mr. Chair, what the opposition has to hide, because I had stated on several occasions that I believed that none of the opposition parties had done anything wrong, from what I could see. In all the election documents I've examined, I can see nothing that would suggest to me that any of the opposition parties had done anything wrong. Yet if that is the case, Mr. Chair, then why do they not just summarily and voluntarily say “Hey, let's get this investigation going. Here are our books; come on, let's get the witness list going and let's start the investigation.” They would probably, I would suggest, also recommend—and that might even end up with a vote on this matter—that we start with the Conservative Party. Well, if that's what it came to, they obviously have the numbers. I'm sure that would be the order in which these investigations took place.

But they didn't even get to that point, Chair, and again, it has to raise the question of what they are afraid of. What are they hiding? I note with great interest yesterday's news conference. These are quotes, rather than paraphrases, from Monsieur LeBlanc, who states: “We're also wondering what the Conservatives are so afraid of.”

Mr. Chair, once again, let me remind not only Monsieur LeBlanc but also all members of this committee, all members of the media, and all who are observing these proceedings and listening to these proceedings that we do not have anything to hide—well, Mr. Godin might have something to hide, since he is being investigated by Elections Canada, Chair. I wanted to clarify my position there; perhaps Mr. Godin does have something to hide—perhaps that's why he's not volunteering his election campaigns—but the fact is that Mr. LeBlanc stated that in the news conference yesterday.

I would contend that simply the reverse is true. We are the only party that has voluntarily offered to have all our books and all our officials present at this committee for a full and thorough examination and discussion of our advertising practices in not only the 2006 election but also in the 2004 and 2000 elections.

Why are we the only party that has offered to do so? Why haven't the opposition members voluntarily and with great dispatch said they have nothing to hide, that their books are open and transparent, and that they want to begin the committee work? According to statements made in yesterday's news conference, they say they want to get to work.

I'll see if I can get the exact reference, Chair. I believe this comes from my friend Mr. Godin, who says, and I quote, “I'm very pleased to be with the two other parties this morning to show the solidarity of the opposition that we don't believe in a minority government”—well, that's interesting in itself—“that the Conservatives should take over the way that they have been trying to do it by using tactics that they're using now to stop us to do our work.”

It's quite apparent, Chair, to anybody who is paying attention to these proceedings that the only parties that don't want to do the work are the opposition parties. They perhaps want to do partial work, at best, by investigating one party but not the others. I think one could even make an argument, Chair, that should Monsieur Godin be under investigation by Elections Canada, perhaps there are others in the New Democratic Party who are in a similar position. Perhaps the party itself has employed practices similar to those of Monsieur Godin, and they may ultimately be placed under investigation by Elections Canada.

I would think, Chair, that they would want to clear the air and try to give confidence not only to the political parties themselves but also to the general electorate and general public that all candidates in all parties are above reproach and conduct themselves in an appropriate and entirely legal manner.

One would think that the only way to do that—to truly inspire that level of confidence, Chair, and provide the public and others, including aspiring politicians and those who may someday wish to seek public office, with the confidence that their elected representatives and the political process in Canada are working well and working in a fashion that is true to the democratic principles of this country and true to the guidelines as established by Elections Canada—would be to be fully transparent when talking about advertising and advertising expenses.

There is much confusion, Chair, in the minds of Canadian voters and the Canadian public as to how this whole party-versus-candidates, national-versus-local expense thing works. What are these caps all about? What's the discussion about? Well, I can understand why members of the general public would be confused over this, because Elections Canada has presented a pretty complex set of rules. In fact, I think there could certainly be an argument that the rules themselves—the guidelines surrounding election spending by parties and by candidates—should be examined and perhaps changed, and I think that would be a worthy discussion for this committee.

In other words, Chair—and I'll certainly read this into the record in a few hours—the attitudes of some, and perhaps the comments I will read into the record, reflect those of a journalist who covers the political scene. Perhaps they are reflective of the views of many, if not most, of the Canadian public, and those views deal with the possible need for a change in the way Elections Canada administers election spending.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have a point of order, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With all due respect to Mr. Lukiwski and journalists, I wonder as to the relevance of questioning, on the heels of articles written by reporters, the validity or the appropriateness of Election Canada's regulations, Mr. Chairman. I would like to hear your opinion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think it's pretty clear in the Standing Orders and in Marleau and Montpetit that we allow as much range of discussion as possible, and that's what we're doing.

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

Chair, I will just reassure my honourable colleague that the article to which I referred is extremely relevant, although I won't enter its complete content into the record at this time. I will be doing that later this afternoon or this evening, but I will give you the headline, Chair, to give you and my honourable colleague the sense of why this is relevant.

The article's headline is “Hardly the same as Adscam, Grits' Attempt To Pin Advertising Fraud On Tories Is Off Base”. The entire article deals with the motion and the story that we're discussing this very day. I would suggest it would be extremely relevant.

In this article, Chair, the writer makes what I think is a very valid and relevant point. It is that perhaps there should be some changes in the way Elections Canada sets its guidelines for advertising caps. This is at the core of the dispute we have before us. Frankly, I suppose Elections Canada has launched its investigation because they think there are, at the very least, some gray areas here, but the opposition members certainly contend that the Conservative Party was transferring money to local candidates so that the local candidates could then run a series of national ads—in other words, promoting the national party—and that in fact is wrong, because that's not a local ad; it's a national ad, and that money should be part of the national advertising cap.

In the 2006 election the national advertising cap for every political party was $18.3 million. The members opposite who presented their arguments in yesterday's news conference made a point of saying this could potentially allow the Conservative Party to exceed the advertising cap by as much as $10 million. My guess is that the calculation they used in coming up with this figure of $10 million was based on the number of candidates for election. There are over 300 ridings, and if you run a candidate in all the ridings and each of them receives $30,000 from the federal party and spends that money on strictly national ads, then the Tories could conceivably exceed their national advertising cap of $18.3 million by $10 million.

Again, we're talking about a situation that.... When I saw them making this claim, I had to think this was so outrageous and so unbelievable that anyone who knows anything about elections and their campaigns would see the absolute absurdity behind this contention.

First, to suggest that every one of the candidates running for the Conservatives across Canada would have $30,000 left in their campaigns under their own caps to run national ads is absolutely, simply, absurd. I can only speak about my case, but I'm sure my situation is probably reflected by almost all, if not all, of the members of this committee. My cap to run a local campaign in Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre was slightly more than $70,000, and I can assure all the members that I ran the maximum. I spent all of that, so to suggest that I and 300-plus other candidates would spend $30,000 less than we were able to do in order to receive $30,000 from the national campaign for only national ads is absolutely absurd.

The caps that candidates have include all forms of expenses, including advertising, lawn signs, the establishment of a campaign office, telephones, and all of those things. You need that money to effectively run a good campaign, so the suggestion made in yesterday's news conference that the Tories have the potential to exceed their national cap by $10 million because they can send $30,000 to each of their candidates across Canada—who would then in turn run national ads to promote the national party—is absolutely absurd. The local candidates would not be able to cut back $30,000 and lop it off their local campaign expense cap to facilitate that type of request. I certainly wouldn't. I would want that money to pay for the essentials of running a campaign. I would not have that amount of room.

In other words, if my campaign expense limit in Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre was roughly $70,000, I wouldn't agree to anything or anybody who told me I had to be able to cut down my expenses and only run a $40,000 campaign because they were going to give me $30,000 to run national ads. I'd tell them get out of here, to take a hike. I can't do it and won't do it. That's why I say that much of what was said in yesterday's news conference is absolutely nonsensical. It's bordering on the absurd to suggest this is part of a major scheme the Tories have.

Not only was there the implication during this news conference, Mr. Chair; there was also the outright assertion by opposition members that we want to get this done because an election could be imminent. If we don't deal with this now, this committee can't investigate those dirty Tories and get to the bottom of this if an election is held in the near future. Before we've had a chance to thoroughly examine the books of the Tories, they could potentially exceed the national advertising cap for the next election by $10 million. They are stating there is a sense of urgency to get this investigation going because an election may be called within the next month. According to the opposition, they want to have this matter settled and dealt with to prevent the Tories from having the ability to exceed the national cap in the next election, the one that may be coming very shortly.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that if the opposition members are truly interested and concerned about doing that because they think the Conservative Party has this master scheme to go into an election with an unresolved issue that would open up the door to allow the Tories to spend millions of dollars above our cap, then let's start the investigation right now. It could be done today. All the opposition members have to do is agree to support my motion.

Mr. Chair, as I stated earlier and as was raised to me in a question by a member of the media yesterday, the probability is that the investigation of the Tories and of our election campaign would be one of the, if not the, earliest campaign investigations by this committee. In other words, if they agreed to my motion to look at the books of all four parties, then the internal determination has to be where we start.

Where do we start? There are four parties here. Do we bring them all in at the same time, or do we do it one by one? How do we coordinate and arrange the witness lists? Chances are we would be speaking to Conservative officials and taking a look at some of the Conservative campaign expenses before any others. Those are just the odds of probability, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, but even with that high degree of probability, the opposition members continue to refuse to support my motion.

My colleague just asked, off the record, “What do they have to hide?” That is something I'm starting to ask now.

Unfortunately, Chair, we have another member who has just joined, has obviously not been here, and has not heard my comments of the last few moments—

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

Maybe you should start from the beginning, Tom.

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

Well, I do want to make sure that the member opposite is familiar....

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Do that. I'm listening. Please continue.

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

Well, Chair, I always thought the catch line “I'm listening” came from Dr. Frasier Crane, but it works well with you too. It looks good on you.

My point is that if the opposition's motives are sincere in actually trying to correct a wrong and find out if something was actually intentionally done illegally, then they should have no difficulty in supporting my motion. They obviously do, so I have to ask, since we were the only party that has voluntarily agreed to bring our books for examination and they have not, what they have to hide.

We know that the Liberals, of course, have a lot to hide. I wouldn't suggest for a moment that some of the $40 million from the sponsorship scandal might have ended up in any of those campaigns, but perhaps that's part of it; I don't know. All I can say is that without equivocation, the examination of our books could have begun long before this had the opposition merely agreed to support this motion. Without question, they have not done so for strictly political reasons.

I know they are going to be opposing this, or at least disagreeing with my comments and my observations. They did so yesterday in their news conference, but I would suggest to you, Chair, that the more this discussion takes place and the more this discussion becomes known to the general public, the more it will be apparent to members of the general public that it is nothing more than a witch hunt.

Chair, there appears to be a great deal of election speculation going on, at least at this point in time. If you are a political junkie or even a casual but interested observer of politics, I think election fever has ramped up significantly over the past two days. I would suggest that if you polled even most members of Parliament, last week you would probably have found that the majority of members would have said they didn't think there was going to be an election any time soon. Perhaps they'd have said later this year, maybe even later this spring, but they certainly weren't thinking an election would happen imminently.

Well, events have changed significantly in the last 48 hours, Chair, and the observations made by many—particularly the political pundits, those commentators whose job it is to observe and report and prognosticate and pontificate on all things political—are almost of one mind right now. Again, this attitude has changed over the last 48 hours; all those individuals are pretty well agreed in opining that there is likely to be an election now, caused by the defeat of the budget.

They're suggesting that, Chair, because the Liberal Party does not want to face an election on the Afghanistan issue, because as we know....

Chair, I appreciate your wanting me to bring this into relevance. I'll tie the ends together. It's quite obvious the reason this—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

Chair, perhaps you could ask Monsieur Guimond to allow me to make my presentation uninterrupted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm not sure that he didn't get the message. Please carry on.

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

Thank you, Chair.

But the reason this is so entirely relevant is that since this is--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I guess that means he didn't get the message, so I'll just call order for the record, and let's allow the member to continue.