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

[An hon. member]

I think he's for the motion now.

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

He understands, or I think he's starting to understand, that the practices employed by his New Democratic Party were exactly the same as those of the Conservative Party.

There was a slight variation with the Liberal Party, because they used a filter. They used their riding associations as a filter. In other words, theirs was a three-way transfer. They went from national party to riding association to local campaign, whereas the NDP went directly from national campaign to local candidate.

So there are some slight variances in the approach, but the end result is the same. However, there's no political benefit to the NDP or the Liberals to have that explanation brought forward to the Canadian public. That's what I'm attempting to do here, to show them there are some complexities, absolutely, but all parties acted in a similar fashion and all parties acted within the confines of the Canada Elections Act. They all acted appropriately. No parties broke the law. If one did, then they all did, but that wasn't the case here. It wasn't the case whatsoever.

Now, with some of these examples, you may say, “Well, it sounds the same, but is it exactly the same?” Well, of course, it isn't exactly the same. The amounts vary. The methodology in which the money was transferred from the federal party to the local campaign vary. I've illustrated that. The Liberals used an intermediary—their local riding associations—but the concept was absolutely the same.

Let's think about how this all came about. I would argue that this practice of national campaigns funding local campaigns, and then having the local campaign promote the national campaign, has been going on for well over a decade.

My motion only speaks to examination of the elections from 2000, 2004, and 2006, because the Conservative Party—as we know it today—wasn't around back in the 1990s. In fact, prior to the 2004 election, we weren't here, but we felt it appropriate to go back at least three elections to show this continuing pattern.

I would submit to you that if we went back and had a thorough examination of the advertising practices of all parties going back into the 1990s and beyond—I would suggest if we went back as far as 1988—you would find that the same procedures and protocols were followed by all political parties. This has not changed.

This is nothing that is any different today than it was back in 1988, with respect to the matter in which some transactions take place. Never, since 1988 to 2006—a span of 18 years—has there ever been any finding from Elections Canada that the party that engaged in these practices was at fault. This is the first example of that.

And yet, the confusing and distressing part of this whole situation is that, while we know now by my testimony that all parties have engaged in the same practice, only one party was found to be in violation of the act. I can't explain it. I wish I could. I wish we could bring all officials to this committee to ask those very questions.

But, unfortunately, unless the members of the opposition agree to my motion, that situation isn't going to occur. We're not going to get to the situation where this committee can fully examine these advertising practices that have been so consistent among all the parties for over 18 years. That, I think, is extremely unfortunate.

One of the things that this committee has done in the past—on many occasions—long before I've been an elected member and a member of this committee, is made many improvements to the procedures and practices of all parliamentarians. They have examined the Elections Act on many occasions. They have had an opportunity to debate and discuss Elections Canada guidelines before.

I suggest that it would be totally appropriate that this committee continue in that vein—not as a partisan group, but as a committee functioning on behalf of all parliamentarians—to continue with the tradition of improving the situation and procedures and practices of all the members, regardless of political affiliation.

Unfortunately, our attempt to bring that level of discourse up, to bring the level of discussion to a point where, once again, we might be in a position to make valuable recommendations to officials at Elections Canada for the benefit of all parliamentarians, is being stonewalled. We're being told by members of the opposition that that ain't going to happen.

Frankly, I think that's a real shame. I think that if we were able to put these partisan differences aside and simply get on with the examination under question, we would all be better served because of it.

But once again, I have to go back to the fact that my motion speaks to that.

My motion would recommend that a full examination of the advertising practices of all political parties for the last three federal elections be undertaken immediately by this committee. Frankly, that satisfies the wishes of opposition members, who are asking for that very thing. They're asking for the books of the Conservative Party to be fully examined.

I'm sure they want their shot at finding the smoking gun. We're fully prepared to allow them to have that period of examination. Of course they don't like it when we say, “What's fair is fair, and let's take a look at yours, to compare.” I think it would be extremely fair and an extremely compelling argument if after the examination of all parties' books we were able to definitively say, “You see, everyone acted in a similar fashion. Everyone acted in the same fashion. Therefore we're all at fault, or none of us are at fault.”

That would be an extremely simple thing to find out. I think if we had the ability to examine all the books and present these books in front of the entire committee, we'd be able to conclude those examinations probably within no more than four hours. I have given several examples here already.

[An hon. member]

You've done most of our work.

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

Exactly.

I mean, the opposition wanted to examine the Conservative books. Well, I've given a lot of testimony this afternoon that speaks to the very concerns they say they have. Yet we all know that's not the real reason. That's not the real motivation behind what they propose in their motion. When they go to the foyer of the House and have their scrums, send out their ten-percenters, put out the news releases, and when they speak on panel shows, they merely want the ability to say, “Tories under investigation for alleged improper election spending”.

That's what they want. That's why they don't want their own books to be examined. It certainly wouldn't have the same cachet if there was an examination of all parties' books. It certainly wouldn't be in the best interest of them politically to say they're examining their own practices and have to admit after an hour or two of committee examination that they were doing the same thing as the Conservatives. Where would that get them? Frankly, it would make them look like they were being politically opportune and trying to smear the Conservatives, which in fact is exactly what they're attempting to do here.

I don't see any softening of their position. It is unfortunate that legislation has to suffer as a result of this. I'm sure the Bloc Québécois would like to see Bill C-6 passed before the next federal election. Perhaps it will; perhaps it won't. If we could merely dispense with this issue, I think we could go a long way to clearing the air, to putting this issue behind us, and to getting on with legislation I know many at this table want to discuss. That doesn't appear to be happening.

Someone mentioned Dominic LeBlanc, who up until a couple of hours ago was sitting here. His place is still reserved. I see his name on his stand. Why don't we take a look at the summary of expenses of the campaign of Dominic LeBlanc?

[An hon. member]

Dominic LeBlanc?

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

Well, again, there are many members and many examples that we have.

So let's take a look and talk about Dominic LeBlanc.

There was a regional medial buy for all New Brunswick Liberal candidates in the 2006 election. The local campaign of Dominic LeBlanc in the 2006 election, in which Mr. LeBlanc was elected as the MP, apparently participated in this regional media buy organized by the national party. The documentation on the record at Elections Canada in relation to one of the participating campaigns, that of Brian Murphy, we have attached in this document as exhibit 30.

In the copy provided by Elections Canada, the cheque from the official agent in payment of the ad is made out not to the newspapers but rather to the Liberal Party. I think-

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Do they advertise?

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

Apparently it's national.

My colleague, I know, is listening intently, and sometimes I found that if you close your eyes your other senses, your auditory senses are more acute, and I think that's what's happening here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I find things taste better.

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

He's soaking in the testimony far more intently than perhaps if he had his eyes open.

In any event, a memorandum from the director of organization of the New Brunswick Liberal Association in the Elections Canada documentation states, and I quote, “the ten ridings as a collective group have decided to run newspaper ads”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski, sorry, a point of order.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I think that there is someone seated in Mr. Scott Reid's seat, who's masquerading, wearing a black mask and....

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No, it's not a point of order. It's a debate, and I wouldn't want to discriminate against members who don't have the ability to see over....

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

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

Thank you.

We've attached exhibits as well. They are the Liberal ads from the Telegraph-Journal and the L'Acadie newspapers on Saturday, January 21, 2006, which would appear to be the ads in question. The content of the ads, except for the names of the candidates, is entirely national.

The Liberal candidates who participated in this regional media buy are Dominic LeBlanc, Brian Murphy, Paul Zed, and Andy Scott--who are all sitting members of Parliament, as of right now--plus a number of candidates: Eldon Hunter, Marcelle Mersereau, Jean-Claude D'Amours, who's an MP Charles Hubbard, member of Parliament, Stan Smith, and Andy Savoy.

The situation here was that the national party transferred money to these candidates, who then ran a national ad, merely listed their names, and claimed it as a local expense. That is exactly the type of purported violation that Elections Canada has ruled the Conservative Party committed. In other words, they're saying that if the national party pays money, and the local candidates use it to run a national ad, it's a national ad, and it should be considered to be part of the national advertising cap as I mentioned earlier.

You can make a fairly strong argument for that, except that it does not comply.... It is not against the rules as set by Elections Canada. In fact, they would be in total compliance with this.

So again I simply ask the question, Chair, that if in fact it is okay for one political party to engage in regional media buys like this and to engage in the transfer of funds from national parties to local candidates, why then is it not okay for other parties to engage in the same actions? It must be.

Surely as night follows day, Mr. Chair, you must have the ability--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me.

Monsieur Guimond, I'm going to ask you to turn the camera in to the clerk to verify that the picture has been destroyed.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Guimond, you should know better, and actually the chair is very discouraged by that kind of behaviour. I would not expect someone of your calibre, as a whip of a party in the House of Commons, to so obviously break the rules. You don't have the microphone.

Mr. Reid, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On a point of order, it may interest all members, and particularly Mr. Guimond, to be aware of the fact that it was after I saw him sleeping in his seat that it occurred to me I might do the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There is no debate. I'm going to tell you right now, members who are in this room, I don't want to hear anybody present to anyone in this committee any kind of prejudice against anyone who may not have accurate sight. We're not going to set that precedent. If members, including myself, want to sit back and take the pressure off my spine, I will do that. There will be no pictures and no violations of the rules.

My apologies, Mr. Lukiwski. You have the floor.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. [Inaudible: Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

The point I'm trying to make--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry, is there a point of order over here?

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes. My point of order is that when a member's requesting the microphone for a point of order, I think it's incumbent upon you to recognize them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

My apologies. The microphone wasn't on; I didn't hear.

Monsieur Guimond.