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

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

My condolences that you have to follow this that closely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

I am watching.

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

The story goes on to point out that although the local candidates paid for the ad, the content of the ad was completely national, and of that there's no question.

In the story they go on to interview some people who have more than, I would suggest, just a passing knowledge of this story and this issue and to ask for their opinions. After the example of this apparent contradiction with respect to the Liberal position was pointed out, they asked a few observers what they made of this. The head of Democracy Watch, Mr. Duff Conacher, who everyone here knows, says it's possible that the Conservatives do have a point. The only difference was that the Liberals spent on print rather than TV advertising, so their spending was listed under the “other” category and the Conservatives' was listed under the “radio and television” category. That's the only difference.

If you examine the definition of advertising contained in the Elections Canada guidelines, this point is moot. Advertising is advertising, whether it be print or electronic. It doesn't matter.

Frankly, Chair, while we're on that point, I should make another point, because this has been brought up by some, at least, who have suggested that if Conservative candidates have paid for advertising that is national and claim that it is in fact going to promote their own candidacy—we've had a discussion on that, and Elections Canada agrees that you can promote your own candidacy by promoting the national party, and I think all of us agree that that's a very effective way of getting yourself elected, by promoting your own national party—then at the very least you have to have those ads run in your own riding.

Some have noted that, well, in certain parts of the country, there was an ad that was paid for by candidate X, but the ads were running in the riding of candidate Y. Well, television and radio in many parts of this country span many, many ridings. And I know it's always been a point of discussion in my own campaign, when talking to my campaign managers and others who help me with the campaign, whether we should invest in television ads because of the inefficiencies sometimes. In other words, if I pay the cost of a television ad, which is very expensive compared to print or radio advertising or billboards or signs, it seems to many that it's somewhat inefficient because it doesn't appear just in my riding, it appears maybe in 20 or 30 other ridings. And because of that range, because of the scope of television, the cost goes up. So the argument always is whether it is the most efficient use of our money to buy television, because it doesn't appear just in our riding.

If you buy a bunch of brochures and distribute them, you know it's just going to constituents in your riding. If you put money into signs, you pound them into the lawns just within your riding walls. But if you buy television.... In Saskatchewan I can use this example, of course. I could buy an ad to promote my candidacy in Regina. That same ad is going to be shown in Yorkton. So some of you may say, “Hey, what's going on here? You're funding the Yorkton candidate's campaign.” No, he happens to be in the coverage area of the television buy——nothing more, nothing less.

Chair, the point is to refute the Liberal argument, or their position, that states that they believe there was a violation of the Elections Act because the national Conservative Party sent money to local candidates who had room under their advertising cap. They took the money and spent the money on a national ad. They authorized it, of course, as they were required to do, and the ad ran primarily on radio or television. Because of that, the Liberal position is that the Conservatives violated the act. But, Chair, I will go back to the exact guidelines as printed by Elections Canada, which specifically state that that is allowable, that is okay, that is acceptable, that is legal, according to Elections Canada.

Chair, I can't for the life of me understand how the Liberals can take a position that if they took any opportunity just to read the Elections Act itself or some of these guidelines that Elections Canada produces for candidates and registered parties, they would know that their position does not hold any water, that their position is absolutely wrong, but that hasn't stopped them from making the allegations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry.

Could we just turn off our cellphones and perhaps our cameras?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I think that was actually a doorbell. Mrs. Jennings has a doorbell here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Maybe somebody wants in. I don't suspect for a minute anybody wants in to the committee, so it must be a cellphone.

While I have everybody's attention, food is at the back. Please make your way to get yourselves some sustenance. I wouldn't want to see anybody passing out from hypoglycemia.

In the interim, Mr. Lukiwski, please continue.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, we have an allegation from the Liberals that the Conservative Party has violated elections spending practices and laws because of a transfer situation to candidates and the candidates then spending the money on national ads. Because of that, according to the Liberals, they want this matter investigated. They want our books to be open. They want to examine them because they say we did something wrong and they say they want an opportunity to prove it at this committee.

Yet, Chair, I would suggest that it is more than slightly disingenuous to take that position because there are many examples of Liberal candidates either being investigated or being in potential violation of electoral law. I want to list a few of these examples. Again, I would suspect that these are not examples the Liberals want me to raise, but I will raise them for the record anyway, because it shows again the hypocrisy between their own stated position and what some of their own people have been doing.

The former Liberal member of Parliament in west Vancouver, Blair Wilson, is accused of evading electoral spending limits in 2006 by paying some campaign workers in cash and not reporting some donations and some expenses. Mark Marissen, who is a B.C. Liberal organizer and Stéphane Dion's national campaign co-chair, allegedly was made aware of the irregularities 12 days before they became public, but they were not reported until they did become public.

I'm wondering why the Liberals, in all their sanctimony of saying that we have to get to the bottom of this, that we can't allow this type of scandal to take place, haven't then come before this committee and asked for Mr. Wilson's election returns to be examined.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. LeBlanc, on a point of order.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Lukiwski is talking about Mr. Wilson. I'm wondering whether later on in his comments he'll also talk about Wajid Khan, or has that been swept under the rug?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's complete debate.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, it was a point of debate, but I'd be more than welcome to talk about it because Elections Canada has settled that. To my knowledge, there has been no settlement with Mr. Wilson.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I think it's been swept under the rug.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I do appreciate the rug reference. Even though it may be the second time, it was just about as funny as the first time.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Some of us are slower in figuring this out.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

The settlement included a new hairpiece.

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

Easy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Please, no more on this.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Just further to this point of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It wasn't a point of order; it was debate.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I was just wondering if Mr. LeBlanc has an explanation for Mr. Benoit's hair.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me.

Colleagues, that was enough time to allow Mr. Lukiwski to go to the washroom. I'm just telling you right now that sometimes committee members take opportunities that are worth it. They lighten the mood of the room and they're compassionate. I just want to put that on the record, although you aren't leaving, my friend, you are speaking.

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

Any time the chair wishes to have a biological break, a washroom break, that would be much appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It sucks to be you.

Please continue.