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

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

Thank you.

The other thing that is potentially--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

Well, I think we can get around that, Mr. Proulx.

I'm sorry, Chair, I should have addressed my remarks through you.

A potentially very serious problem, I believe, again with the Liberal Party of Canada, is the situation with respect to many of their leadership candidates. As of January 1 of this year, many of the leadership candidates--I should probably more accurately say contenders, because the four individuals that I will name were certainly a very real part of the leadership convention, and any one of them at one point in time was being touted as a potential winner. But all of these major contenders are seriously in debt. As of January 1 of this year, Mr. Ignatieff was in debt to the tune of $529,496; Mr. Rae, $221,522; Mr. Kennedy, $568,102.10; and the granddaddy of them all, in terms of debt load, Chair, is the leader of the official opposition, Monsieur Dion, who as of January 1 of this year was still in debt to the tune of $838,707.03.

The reason this is relevant is if these debts aren't paid off by June 3 of this year, the candidates risk violating the Canada Elections Act. They have some options.

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

On a point of clarification, I appreciate that Mr. Lukiwski has reminded us of all of this, but I would like to clarify that all of these debts and donations have been fully declared, contrary to what Mr. Harper has now done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You know what? I really want to continue to recognize points of order, but so far I haven't heard any. So I'm going to be very cautious from now on in recognizing points of order.

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

But that was a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That was debate, and we're back to Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Chair.

The reason I mention that, Chair, is I'm wondering whether or not there was a loophole in the act--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, everybody. Could we write down that Mr. Guimond is leaving for two minutes? Did anybody not get that?

Thank you, Monsieur Guimond. It's very important.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

The reason I mention this is because there was a loophole in Elections Canada that we have now closed, and that is, prior to our legislation coming into effect, the leadership candidates could actually go to their donors and ask them to forgive the debt. I'm wondering whether or not that will take place, because we have now, as most here know, changed that legislation and that is now not an option.

It would appear to me, Chair, that if the individuals in question, two of whom are sitting members of Parliament and two of whom will be candidates in upcoming byelections—or is a candidate in one case—and may soon become members of this place, if they have not then paid off their debt by June 3 this year and have not asked the donors to forgive their debt, they could potentially be in violation of the Elections Act.

So I find it, to say the very least, interesting that on one hand the Liberal Party can take the position of alleging that the Conservative Party is violating the Canada Elections Act when, by anyone's definition, including the definition of Elections Canada itself, we are not. Yet they do not make mention of any desire to bring other cases before this committee. Why not? If there is a sincere desire by the Liberals to examine all alleged illegal activities, why haven't they asked Monsieur Godin to appear before this committee and be investigated? Why have they not called upon Mr. Wilson? Why have they not called the leader of the opposition to come forward and explain his plans to reduce his debt before June 3? After all, $800,000-plus is a very significant debt load to pay off in approximately four and a half months.

Chair, the only reason they have not asked for these investigations to take place is that it would not be to their political advantage. In fact, it would be quite the opposite. It would be to their political disadvantage. They would have to admit—and by “they”, I mean at least the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Canada—that there are not only some serious questions about the propriety of some of their own members' spending practices, but there is in one case, and that is in the New Democratic Party, a member, Monsieur Godin, who is under active investigation.

Chair, what's right is right, and it would appear to me that if we want to truly and sincerely be the arbiter of all that is in question or under question by Elections Canada, then we should be investigating all such situations. I saw Monsieur Godin yesterday very forcefully and eloquently present himself before the media in the National Press Gallery, the press centre, and state: “We want the Conservatives to stop its filibustering. We want the Conservatives to stop their petty games and we want to get to the bottom of this.” Elections Canada has them under investigation. Yet I listened very carefully, and I have to say that while I'm certainly not fluent en français, I had the ability to have his commentary translated to me, so I listened very carefully, very intently, and not once during his dissertation did I hear him say, “Oh by the way, to show that I am an honourable and fair man, I am going to ask the committee to investigate me because I also am under investigation by Elections Canada.

As a matter of fact, I thought perhaps because Monsieur Godin is an honourable man I might have missed it. So I took the time to get the transcripts, and after careful examination of the transcripts, it was confirmed that Monsieur Godin did not mention that he himself is under investigation by Elections Canada.

Chair, I think it's as plain as the nose on your face, it's quite apparent, that Monsieur Godin had no intention of raising his own investigation at that news conference, because of course that wouldn't look good. We all know that this is not about fairness or openness; it's about partisanship, pure and simple.

If we truly want to dispense with this matter, and dispense with it quickly, let's agree to my motion. Or perhaps we can just, as the testimony will indicate, take a hard look at the examples I have raised to date, and I will continue to raise, of contradictions in the opposition position, and in fact in the Elections Canada position with respect to their own stated guidelines for election spending. That, in my view, at least, is the only way to deal with this in a correct manner.

In other words, let's look at what the rules are, agree to what the rules state, examine what the allegations are all about, and then put the two together. I have given myriad examples over the last couple of days that show clearly the contradictions between the positions of the opposition in this matter and Elections Canada's own guidelines.

I would suggest, Chair, that had the opposition been able to present one morsel of evidence to this committee to accompany the motion of Ms. Redman, that would have had far more weight and far more significance than their simply stating that in their opinion some violations occurred. But they didn't. One would think, again, if you're looking at things just from a purely common-sense perspective, that if the Liberals, Bloc Québécois, or the New Democratic Party had any evidence whatsoever, they would have attached those documents to accompany their motion, to state, “Here and now is the hard evidence that suggests we need to have an investigation of the Tories. It's not just our allegations, this is not just political partisanship, but there is some truth, some substance, behind our allegations.”

Chair, we saw absolutely none of that. Why? Because there isn't any evidence.

I want, Chair, to continue to give examples of both the Elections Canada guidelines and the apparent contradictions in the actions of opposition parties and also the apparent contradictions—and I would suggest real contradictions—in the allegations levelled against the Conservatives.

Perhaps before I do that, Chair, to again put this in proper context, I will read into the record a column that appeared in the National Post that deals directly with this issue. I do this to contextualize and frame the argument that the opposition is attempting to make. Once that's been done, Chair, then we can go into specific examples of both what is contained within Elections Canada guidelines and also what opposition parties have done in compliance or non-compliance with those guidelines.

Let me read this article, Chair. It appeared September 6, 2007, in the National Post, and it was a column written by Mr. John Ivison. I read the headline before, Chair, but I will repeat it for the record. The headline that appeared on top of this article reads, “Hardly the same as Adscam, Grits' Attempt To Pin Advertising Fraud On Tories Is Off Base”. The byline is Ottawa. It reads:

The louder the Liberals shout about how much more reputable they are than the dastardly Conservatives, the faster one is inclined to count the spoons.

Incredible as it may seem, the party that brought you the sponsorship scandal is now attacking the Tories for an “election fraud” that, if proven, represents a “gross breach of public trust”—a subject on which they have some expertise.

The Liberals rolled out one of their most able performers yesterday, Dominic LeBlanc, to charge that the Conservatives have “orchestrated” an election financing scheme aimed at circumventing the Elections Act on spending limits.

“Is this any different to the athlete who uses performance-enhancing drugs to win a race,”—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, order.

Is there a point of order?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes. We are no longer getting the translation.

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

Translation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is there a problem with translation?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

My apologies.

[An hon. member]

Let's suspend until we fix it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No, no.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It is not...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's fine. Thank you very much.

The translators do not have the article in front of them. I'm going to ask Mr. Lukiwski—

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

Sorry about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

—to slow down.

I apologize to all our members, but, Mr. Lukiwski—

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No, you go in French.