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

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

Chair, I'm not sure, quite frankly, in debate, whether there are any hard and fast rules I've ever seen in Marleau and Montpetit that suggest that one can't repeat a particular case in point for emphasis and to stress its importance. That's what I've been doing, because frankly, Chair, I think we've seen a lot of the members being very inattentive, and I just want to make sure they're fully apprised and fully aware of the importance of my argument.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have a point of order again. We'll go to Mr. Reid, please.

Order, please.

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

I appreciate Monsieur Godin's concerns here. I actually think Mr. Lukiwski's response is a good one. It's very difficult when there is background noise and interruptions of the sort we have just heard.

I just wanted to make a point here, and I do want to make a distinction that giving multiple examples by way of proving a point is different from saying the same thing over and over again in constant repetition. And all members should be fine with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, the chair is quite aware, and I don't want to get into a debate on a point of order. The chair allows the widest possible debate to take place.

Mr. Lukiwski, you have the floor.

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

Thank you again, Chair.

The only point I was trying to make—and I will re-emphasize this, perhaps several times, for the benefit of Monsieur Godin and others, the media included—is that it is very important to understand that Elections Canada's own guidelines specifically state that a candidate can run a local or national ad if they wish, and that a national campaign, a national office or federal party, can transfer funds unrestrictedly to a local candidate. That's the argument they're posing to try to find that the Conservative Party of Canada has been in violation of the act.

Well, Chair, I again point out that it absolutely makes no sense. Their own guidelines state this is acceptable practice. On the one hand, they're saying this is acceptable practice in all of their written material, and yet in their findings they're saying that because we follow these very practices, somehow we're in violation of the act. Please explain that to me. How can that be? Well, it can't be.

Chair, it is true that after the 2006 election, these guidelines were changed—but that was after the fact. One cannot be found to be in violation of a guideline that wasn't in existence. I just think, Chair, quite simply, that the findings of Elections Canada are wrong and that they honestly erred in their interpretation of these rules.

I do not want to suggest for one moment there was anything but an honest mistake made by Elections Canada. I think that Elections Canada over the years has done an exemplary job in conducting elections in this country. We have had CEOs of Elections Canada before this committee on several occasions. And while we've had differences of opinion from time to time, and sometimes we might even characterize these as disputes, I don't believe there's a member of this committee—certainly not me—who's ever, ever suggested for a moment that the integrity and the honesty of Elections Canada has been questioned. That's not the case. I'm very proud of the work Elections Canada has done over the years and, frankly, proud of the fact that representatives from our country, from Elections Canada, have been instrumental on many occasions in assisting other jurisdictions throughout the world in conducting their elections.

I think our electoral process is a model throughout the world, one that is honest and above reproach, but that doesn't stop the fact, Mr. Chair, that from time to time, mistakes can be made. I honestly and sincerely believe that in this case a mistake has been made. I've given a number of examples and will continue to do so underscoring my contention that a mistake has been made.

Chair, when the court case that we have initiated is heard, I have no doubt that the findings at the end of the day will reflect the position we have taken. That, quite simply, is that we have done nothing wrong; we have followed the guidelines proposed by Elections Canada to the letter.

In fact, Chair, I might also say that I have yet to hear any member from the opposition give a definitive example of how we have violated the electoral law; I've yet to hear that. I've heard a lot of partisan rhetoric saying that clearly the in-and-out game of the Conservatives has violated elections law, and this is a scandal, but they have yet to give one concrete example of how we've done so.

On the other hand, Chair, I have presented, and will continue to present over the course of the next few hours or the next few days, example upon example of how opposition members have followed the same practices as put down in the guidelines from Elections Canada and have done so with impunity. They were not found to be in violation of the act.

We will also demonstrate, Chair, that if in fact that is true, and those practices were similar to ours, then how can one be found in violation and one cannot? It doesn't make any sense.

Chair, it is quite obvious that what's happening here is that we have an attempt by the opposition to smear the reputation of the Conservative Party.

I also want to point out the obvious: if the opposition members were truly interested in finding out whether the Conservative Party or any of our candidates had violated any section of the Elections Act, they would allow us to present our arguments, arguments similar to the ones we're making in Federal Court, that we engaged in practices similar to those of the opposition. Yet they're refusing to do so. They refuse to allow us to do a side-by-side comparison of their books.

They're doing that for only one reason, because they know, as we know, that if we were able to do this side-by-side comparison, it would without question demonstrate that we were either all in violation of the Elections Act...but I think the obvious conclusion would be that none of the parties or candidates were in violation of the Elections Act.

Chair, let me see if I can get to another example, because I think that is what most people can relate to. The example I'll use, because Madam Jennings is here, is from her own campaign. Again, this is something that is fully within Elections Canada guidelines, but I think it shows how many candidates, many members of Parliament, some of whom are sitting around this table, engaged in the same practice.

Ms. Jennings' campaign received an invoice from the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine electoral district association. In other words, her riding association invoiced Ms. Jennings' campaign for $16,132.93, dated May 29, 2004. Later that year, in November 2004, the electoral district received the same amount, $16,132.93, from the Liberal Party, and on the same date Ms. Jennings received a $16,132.93 transfer from the association.

In other words, the association billed Ms. Jennings' campaign for $16,000 and change. She claimed it as an election expense—got a rebate for it, I assume—and then the federal party paid the same amount to her riding association. Then the riding association transferred it back into Ms. Jennings' campaign.

The net effect is that it cost her nothing, but she was able to claim $16,000 and change as a campaign expense and get a rebate.

Is there anything wrong with that? Not according to Elections Canada rules and guidelines. Subsequently, there was no finding that Ms. Jennings did anything wrong.

The point is that our candidates acted in a similar fashion. They did exactly the same thing—received invoices, paid the invoices, claimed them as election expenses, then received money back in through a transfer, either directly from the federal party or federal party to riding association to candidate.

In any event, the national party ended up reimbursing the local candidate for the amount of the ad, and in all cases that is acceptable according to the guidelines set down by Elections Canada itself. Whether Ms. Jennings used the money to run an advertisement promoting her own candidacy or used the money to promote the national party by running a national ad is irrelevant, because both are legal; both are acceptable. Elections Canada itself says that.

The point is, she was fully reimbursed from the national party for running ads in her campaign.

If they were national in scope, Elections Canada, if it wished to be consistent with its findings about the Conservative Party, should have then said that this $16,000 and change should be applied to the national Liberal Party of Canada's advertising campaign cap. Why wasn't it? I don't know. I can't answer that question.

But I do know, Chair, that the process Ms. Jennings followed was the same process our candidates followed. So how can one be in violation and one not? It absolutely makes no sense.

The issue we have is obviously one of great concern to us. We disagree with the findings of Elections Canada. We will certainly be bringing forward these examples and many more arguments when our case is finally heard in Federal Court.

I have also been trying to demonstrate for the record, for the sake of all committee members here, that the allegations made by the opposition certainly don't hold any water. But do you know something, Chair? They know that as well.

They are not making these allegations in an attempt to find the truth or get to the bottom of this to find out whether or not the Conservative Party was in non-compliance. They are only doing this, Chair, in an attempt to get some headlines, to try to find out whether or not they can successfully manipulate the media into running stories that would be unfavourable to the Conservatives. I suggest, Chair, that if that is their only motivation, with time, as with most of their allegations, it too will be disproved.

I talked at our last committee meeting, before you had to suspend, about this being just the latest in a long series of examples of how opposition members are trying to create scandals where none exist.

They have done so with the Schreiber-Mulroney thing. For the days leading up to the first committee meeting at which Karlheinz Schreiber appeared, all of the questions regarding that event in question period were about the alleged—or imaginary, as it turns out—links between Schreiber, Mulroney, and Prime Minister Harper. They went to the great length of bringing in the government House leader to ask the $64,000 question in committee: “Did you, Mr. Schreiber, have any dealings with Prime Minister Harper?” Of course, they didn't know the answer that was forthcoming, which was absolutely not. He has never talked to the Prime Minister.

Since that time, if you've noticed, we've had precious few questions about any link between Schreiber and the Prime Minister's office or Prime Minister Harper. Why? It is because, again, there is no truth to it. That is an issue that is 15 years old, but the opposition tried at the outset to create a scandal where none exists.

They found out in short order that the best they can do now is to try to pull a guilt-by-association trip by saying okay, we know there are no links between Mr. Schreiber and the Prime Minister's office, but if we can somehow smear Mr. Mulroney and find out if there was some sort of untoward dealing between Schreiber and Mulroney, maybe by association, even though they're two completely different political parties and this was an incident that happened 15 to 20 years ago, perhaps just by guilt by association we might be able to throw some mud against the wall and maybe it'll stick, and maybe somehow the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister will be negatively impacted by it. That's the best they can hope for.

Well, it's the same thing here. This is another issue in which we have done nothing wrong. We will be able to demonstrate that quite clearly in a court of law, but it doesn't stop the opposition from attempting to use anything and everything in their power for strictly partisan reasons to try to smear the reputation of this government.

I would suggest, Chair, that one of the primary reasons they're doing that is that they see an election in the not-too-distant future. No one truly knows when the next election will be, but clearly it is apparent that the Liberal Party has all the cards on that issue, all of the power within their control to force an election.

I believe the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party have proven by their actions and their words quite clearly that they're willing to bring down this minority government at any time at their first opportunity. So it will come down to a decision made by the Liberal Party when they want the next election to be.

I believe, Chair, in the run-up to that anticipated election—and no one, at least no one on our side, really knows when that's going to be—the Liberals primarily are trying to create a scandal to try to smear the government in any way, shape, or form possible so that when they get into an election campaign, they've got an issue or two to point to, to say this is why you should defeat that government.

Well, there's nothing on Schreiber and Mulroney. There's absolutely nothing on this issue, and I think I've demonstrated enough examples, both through what is contained in the Elections Canada guidelines and in the actions and practices of opposition members, to show that there's nothing here. Yet I know that won't stop the Liberals in particular from trying to continue with the practice of smear and fear and innuendo and all the rest of the partisan tricks that political parties try from time to time. But it certainly doesn't mean that their allegations have any basis of fact or truth behind them, because they simply don't.

Now, Chair, let's see if we can find another example. Let's talk about what happened with Mr. Dion, the leader of the opposition. Again, the Liberals are the ones contending that there's this in-and-out scheme, which they keep referring to, which the Conservative Party engaged in, and which is somehow in violation of electoral law.

Well, let's see what happened with Mr. Dion back in the 2004 election. Chair, I'll give you an example. That's again one of the reasons we thought it would be appropriate in my motion to allow an examination of all parties' election expenses going back to the year 2000, so we could see that there was a continuing pattern by all political parties that engaged in the same process that has been deemed by the opposition to be the in-and-out scheme.

In 2004, Chair, Mr. Dion's campaign received an invoice from his EDA, his riding association, dated April 21 in the amount of $12,200. He claimed this invoice as an eligible election expense. The following day, on April 22, 2004—and this is indicated by the return from his riding association—it indicates that the association made a non-monetary transfer to the Liberal Party in the same amount, and two weeks later the Liberal Party transferred $12,200 back to the EDA. Chair, that means the federal party was financing this. There was an invoice for the money, it was claimed as an eligible election expense, but then the federal party backfilled it. They just repaid the amount.

Was there anything wrong with this? No, there sure wasn't. We don't suggest there was. But it appears when one of our candidates has done this, there is something wrong—at least that's the finding of Elections Canada. We suggest again that this inconsistency on behalf of Elections Canada is at fault here.

It may be that during the course of the court case, which will hopefully begin sometime in the near future, everyone—courts and Elections Canada alike—will be able to admit that there was a mistake, that they did err in their judgment, and they'll reverse their findings. I think it's going to be apparent as soon as we get into that court case that this will be the ultimate conclusion.

What I have to point out, Chair, is that while that may be true, this committee could come to those very conclusions if they merely accepted the motion I have put forward, and that is to immediately begin examination of our books as well as their own. Yet there's simply no appetite on behalf of the members opposite to do such a thing, because it wouldn't be politically favourable for them to do that. Not that they have anything to hide—perhaps they do, but certainly in these cases that I've illustrated they haven't, because they did nothing wrong. But it wouldn't be politically acceptable to have everyone have their books examined because the attention would be on every party, and that's not what the opposition wants. The opposition simply wants the attention drawn to the Conservative Party, for their own partisan reasons, so that they can try to convince Canadians that those big bad Conservatives have done something wrong again.

Well, Chair, we have not done so. If the opposition parties were truly convinced that we had violated the Elections Act in any way, shape, or form, and they had not, they should welcome my motion. They should absolutely welcome it, because then they could apparently demonstrate to Canadians that after a thorough examination of all of our books, it was only the Conservatives that were at fault here. You'd think they would welcome my motion, because then we could get this discussion and this examination going right away.

But they haven't. Why haven't they? Because they know there's no substance behind their allegations. If they are convinced that it was only our party and our candidates that violated the Elections Act, they should welcome my motion to begin the study right now. If they have done nothing wrong, they should welcome the examination of their own books and compare it to ours. If we were in violation, that would give them the opportunity to prove it, or at least to make a fairly compelling case. The ultimate arbitrator of this will be a Federal Court judge. But if they truly felt that we were in violation of the Elections Act, they would welcome my motion, and they have not.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out why they have not agreed to our motion, why they desperately want to avoid that side-by-side comparison. It's far easier to conduct a political smear campaign based on innuendo than on non-existent facts. That's what this has come down to. We have allegations and innuendo by members opposite, by the opposition parties, that cannot be supported by any facts.

On the other hand, during my presentation I am producing those facts, producing example upon example of practices used by opposition members that are exactly the same as our candidates in the last 2006 election, but they don't want to hear that. They don't want to hear that, and they certainly don't want to examine it. They don't want to bring it forward as an official committee item, because then the obvious conclusions would become apparent, not only to them but to Canadians, that all parties conducted themselves in a similar fashion and none of the parties were in violation of any Elections Canada acts. It is far easier for members of the opposition to simply sit back and cast aspersions, make innuendoes and false allegations, and hope that the general public accepts them as fact. But that is simply not the case.

Let's talk about a few more in-and-out transfers by other candidates. I had mentioned Ms. Davies earlier. I have given one example for the record, but there are more. In the 2006 election there was an invoice to Ms. Davies, who was the candidate, of course. This invoice came from the NDP, from central headquarters, for $7,003.64. It was dated January 13, 2006, 10 days before the election. I checked them, and Ms. Davies, of course, claimed that as an election expense.

A cheque in the same amount, for $7,003.64, from the national party to Ms. Davies was deposited by Ms. Davies on January 31, roughly a week after the election. So here we have another example of Ms. Davies claiming as an election expense an invoice from national headquarters for $7,000 and change, and then, after she claimed it, she was reimbursed for the same amount by national headquarters—the in and out.

Was that wrong? Was that in violation? Well, that's a tough one to answer right now, because apparently if a Conservative member did it, it's in violation; if an NDP member did it, it wasn't. That's the ruling, or at least that's the finding, of Elections Canada.

[An hon. member]

Why don't we investigate them?

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

I can't figure it out. That's why I'd like to have this committee do an examination. Why the inconsistency? If we were to get all the parties to agree to my motion and bring the books forward, we'd have a pretty good discussion, and I think we'd have a very good opportunity to bring the Chief Electoral Officer in here and say, “It doesn't make any sense to us; explain the inconsistencies.”

Here are some examples, one a Conservative and one an NDP; one a Conservative and one a Liberal; one a Conservative and one a Bloc candidate. They've all done the same thing. The amounts vary, but the process is exactly the same. So please tell me, Monsieur Mayrand, why have you only ruled that the Conservative candidates were in violation of the act? Can you explain that to me? I would love to have that discussion.

I think, frankly, we should be having that discussion. I think it should be incumbent upon this committee to enter and engage in that discussion. But the only reason we're not is because the members opposite choose not to. Why not? Again, it's simple; it wouldn't be to their political benefit to have such a discussion, because then they would be engaged in a process that would ultimately exonerate the Conservative Party. They would be in a process that demonstrated quite clearly that they follow the same practices as the Conservative Party. That wouldn't give them any political smack. That wouldn't give them the opportunity to go onto the election hustings and point a finger at the Conservatives, and that's what this is all about. That's simply what this is all about.

We have a situation in which the opposition members are simply trying to muddy the waters, to throw mud against the wall—in this case, the Conservative wall—and hope that it sticks. But it won't. I respectfully submit to all members of this committee that it won't. We saw the same futile attempts at trying to muddy the waters in the Schreiber-Mulroney affair. That didn't work. They backed off. We see similar attempts here.

But as much as anything, at least from the Liberals' perspective, it's an attempt to deflect attention from their own political shortcomings. Let me explain what I mean: they are attempting to use this to smear the Conservative brand.

Why would they want to deflect attention? What could be going on within the Liberal Party that they would want to deflect attention? Well, let's just examine, for a moment, their position or non-position on the continuation of the Afghanistan mission.

The Liberals and Mr. Dion have consistently said that their position was clear, that we need an end to the combat mission by 2009, and that it's the Conservatives who haven't been clear on the matter. Well, I'm going to laugh, because the only people in Canada who would suggest that we haven't been clear in our position are the Liberals.

The Manley report is one that we broadly accepted. The Prime Minister had a news conference to discuss it. He has attempted, since that time, to convince other world leaders to commit additional troops and helicopters. So our position has been clear.

The Liberals, of course, are caught in a divisive moment. Their caucus is divided on this, and they don't want to discuss it. So how do we get away from discussing the issue? Well, why don't we go to committee, make a trumped-up charge, and try to deflect attention? That's what's happening here.

At the end of the day, trumped-up charges are not going to carry the day, politically. At the end of the day, Canadians will not be fooled by this. Canadians will be looking at what's relevant to them, come the next election.

Will this supposed in-and-out scheme be an issue? I think not. But it doesn't stop the opposition members in this committee from attempting to make it an issue. I'm quite sure that when they have caucus meetings or strategy meetings, if in fact they have such things, they're thinking about things they can do either during question period or in committee to try to embarrass or take down the Conservatives. This has been one of them.

It is no secret that we had all discussed this and agreed informally that legislation would be one of our priorities as a committee. No matter what else, legislation, or proposed legislation, would be given priority. Yet when the subcommittee met and came back with their report, it said that the debate on the motion of Karen Redman would take priority over the other work of the committee. Now why would they want to do that?

We all agreed, every party agreed, that legislation would take priority, as it should. Now we have Bill C-6, which I know is very important to the Bloc Québécois. It deals with veiled voting. Well, according to the subcommittee, of which the Bloc were active members—the Conservatives were not, by the way, so were without a voice on that committee—the Bloc agreed to this motion taking priority over Bill C-6, veiled voting.

Now, I know the importance of that bill in the province of Quebec. I know the importance of that motion to the members of the Bloc Québécois at this committee. They've stated that many times. Yet once again partisan interests override anything else when it comes to the members opposite. Even members of the Bloc, who so passionately argued in the debate on Bill C-6, are now saying, “To heck with that, put that aside, because we might be able to create a scandal on this election advertising thing.”

Well, what does that say, Chair, about the motivation behind the Bloc Québécois in this committee, who are willing to subjugate an important discussion on the examination of Bill C-6, which they have identified as a priority of theirs, because of this motion of Ms. Redman's? All that says to me is that the Bloc as well as the Liberals and the NDP are putting partisan interests before the interests of Canadians. They are putting the interests of their own party before the interests of Canadians, putting their own political interests ahead of the interests of Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I don't agree with that. I know that members of my party don't agree with that. But in an attempt to solve this impasse, I've put forward a motion and said, “Look, you want to examine our books? You think something's there? Let's get at it. Let's start doing it. The only thing is that we have to take a look at yours as well.”

If you recall, I consistently have said that we do not believe any of the opposition parties have done anything wrong. They should have nothing to fear. We're even admitting that we believe they have nothing and did nothing wrong.

I don't see why they shouldn't just say this: Great, let's accept the motion, because that way, at least, starting immediately, we can start looking at the inside of the Conservative Party books. We can take a look and see what they did during the election. If they did anything wrong, we'll be able to find it. Since we did nothing wrong and we have nothing to hide, we can open up our books. You can have a full examination of our books. Of course, that will even further buttress our contention that the Conservatives were the only party that did anything wrong. By proving our innocence and proving the complicity of the Conservative Party with the so-called advertising scandal, we can make our case.

But that wasn't the reaction of the opposition parties. That wasn't the reaction of the members opposite.

[An hon. member]

What are they hiding?

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

My colleague just asked what they're hiding. I don't know what they're hiding. I don't know if they're hiding anything. I certainly don't think they did anything wrong. Based on the examples that I've already given—and I've many more to give—I don't think they did anything wrong. Elections Canada apparently agrees, because they didn't find any fault with the election returns of the parties who are represented by these members opposite.

So why would they object to an examination of their books if that allowed them to finally examine ours? That's what they say they want. Their allegations are that the Conservatives and only the Conservatives did something wrong. It would seem to me that the quickest way to prove that, if they can, is to get our books on the table, compare them to theirs, have everyone witness and examine all of the election practices—all of the reporting, all of the financial information, all of the disclosure—and then point to the world and say, “You see? We proved our case. We were right, they were wrong.”

You would think they would welcome that opportunity. You'd think they would rush to that opportunity.

In fact, Chair, it seems odd to me that they didn't even raise that motion on their own volition. If they were truly convinced that we had somehow violated the Canada Elections Act and that they had not, why didn't they bring a motion forward to say that they would gladly open up their books for examination as long as they could see the Conservatives' books? Why didn't they voluntarily say, “My motion says that we want to examine the books of the NDP, the books of the Bloc Québécois, and the books of the Liberal Party, but only if the Conservatives allow their books to be examined, as well”, and then force us to make a decision? If we said, “No, no, no, no”, then they would really have something. Then they would have this media attention, with the media saying the Conservatives were backing off and were refusing to allow their books to be examined. But it isn't that way. It's just the reverse. We are the only party, Chair, that has voluntarily put forward a motion to examine our own books. The opposition members have not.

I think any reasoned opinion that could be gained from this, Chair, is that the opposition doesn't really want an examination to find out the facts. They want an examination strictly for partisan purposes to try to spin the media to say “Committee Investigates Tories”. Those are the headlines they want. That's all they want.

Even if, at the end of the day—and I'm sure the results would reflect this—the committee said we couldn't find anything, that wouldn't be a story as big as the initial story, which they hope would say “Committee Investigates Tories”. That's what they're trying for here.

Mr. Chair, while it's clear to members of my party at this committee and to me that this is the motivation behind the opposition, I think it will become readily apparent to members of the general public as well, because, Chair, finally, for the record, we will have information that I have been providing in this testimony that proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that there has been nothing untoward happening in terms of our reporting relationship with Elections Canada.

I will continue to read into the record, Chair, example upon example upon example of how the other parties, whose members are sitting at this table, have engaged in the same in-and-out advertising schemes, which they allege the Conservatives entered into and which they also allege are not only inappropriate but are against elections law.

I know they don't want to hear this, Chair, but we will enter into the record all these examples. At the end of the day, Chair, whenever that day is, we will be able to bring out this record of testimony and submit that to the ultimate arbiter of who did what that was right and what maybe was wrong, and that is the Canadian public.

I know that members opposite don't like it when I keep entering into the record examples of members of their own parties who did exactly the type of thing they contend we did and what they also contend was against the law. They don't like it when I point out that they did exactly the same thing as Conservative candidates.

We're going to continue to do that, Chair, because that's the only way I can determine that the truth will get out.

Well, let me back up a little. There's another way, and that is simply for the members of this committee to vote to accept this motion that I put forward, pure and simple. All they have to do is indicate that they are willing to accept this motion. As the saying goes in western Canada, Mr. Chairman, “pit or pat, or we'll get at it”. We'll get this examination going right away, I can guarantee that.

But I don't see any willingness from the other side. I see continued stonewalling of truth and justice by the members opposite. They continue to sit back and try to take what they consider to be the pious and moral high ground by saying, you know, we have to make sure we investigate those darn Tories, because if they were doing something wrong we'd better get to the bottom of it. Yet when we willingly offer to open up our books if they would do they same, they backtrack, refuse, or object.

What does that tell Canadians? I know what it tells me. And I think if any Canadian has the ability to read the testimony of this committee, Chair, they'll quickly come to the same conclusions I have, that there's absolutely no basis for the arguments or contentions of the members opposite—absolutely none. This is purely and simply a partisan attempt to smear the Conservatives, nothing more.

If they say absolutely and without political motivation, we only want to get to the bottom of this, we only want the truth, why do they then not join with us in an attempt to do that very thing? Why have they not agreed to let the court case proceed and let a court of law decide, ultimately, whether there were any violations? No, to them, that's not good enough; they want a kangaroo court established here so they can pick and choose the information they present. They don't want to let an impartial judge examine all of the relevant information and documentation, which would include, I might suggest, Chair, information and documentation and financial disclosures of the members opposite and their parties. They don't want that to happen. They're not interested in that because, in all likelihood, the judge will agree with our assertions that under the Elections Canada guidelines of the day, there was no violation in the 2006 election, that there was absolutely nothing inappropriate or in contravention of election laws. That's what the opposition doesn't want to hear.

God forbid, Chair, if we ever had this court case concluded prior to a general election and we were completely exonerated, as I believe we will be. How would the opposition take that? It would be yet another example that Canadians could point to and say, geez, is that all these guys have? They keep trying to create scandals, but these keep blowing up in their face. They don't want that, Chair. It would be better for them politically if there were an unresolved issue about which they could allege there was a scandal than actually to have the truth come out.

If we were able to proceed expeditiously at this committee with an examination of all parties' books, I don't think we'd need more than, probably, a week or two of meetings before the truth would be determined, or a consensus reached by this committee, that there had been no inappropriate behaviour or illegal activity in the advertising practices of the Tories. They don't want that. They would rather sit back and just make unfounded allegations.

Well, Chair, I have to admit that's part of the game, part of politics, right? We all know that. We all admit that. I would suggest there's not a person here at this table who hasn't engaged in some form of political attack on their opponents based on allegations—in some form.

We've seen examples, even in the national media, where there'd be stories the Globe and Mail would publish. The opposition would automatically say, “Well, it was in the Globe”, and then a week later, or sooner than that, the Globe had to retract itself, saying, “The allegations we printed weren't really true.” That didn't stop opposition members from grabbing onto that and trying to make a political point, or score some cheap political points. Everyone's done it. I understand that; I accept that. It's part of the political process.

The point is we've heard only the talk of the opposition, saying, “No, that's not the case. We're holier than thou. We really want this examination, this investigation, because we think there was something wrong.”

Frankly, Chair, I would suggest that it comes close to violating the mandate of this committee to enter into such an investigation. That being said, nonetheless, that's open for debate and argument, I suppose.

I would strongly suggest, Chair, that if we were to truly try to examine the advertising practices of all parties, that discussion wouldn't last very long. Do you know why? The perceived political advantage the opponents think they would get by examining only the Tory books would be gone. It would vanish. There would be no political scandal there. There would be nothing to point to, to say, “You see? Only the Tories are being investigated here. Clearly that says something. They're the only ones who did anything wrong.” Well, that political tool would be gone from the tool case. They wouldn't be able to use that. So that's why they continue to resist my motion.

Frankly, Chair, I don't think Canadians have much time for the antics of the opposition when it comes to this type of thing. I sincerely hope this recorded testimony will filter its way down, and maybe not even filter but directly make its way down, unfiltered, to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I believe even a cursory examination of the testimony I've brought forward today will certainly prove and underscore my contention that this is nothing more than a political exercise brought forward by members of the opposition—nothing more; that's it.

I know the opposition members don't want to hear that, so perhaps let's take a look at another example, with the NDP. I'll now go to what we call exhibit 58, and this will be a candidate, not an elected member—this NDP candidate didn't get elected. The name is—and I hope I don't mispronounce this, but I probably will—Rodolphe Martin. It's the same sort of in-and-out transfer scheme.

The NDP central party, national party, invoiced this candidate $8,333.36, dated September 29, 2005. About 20 days later there was a transfer from the NDP national campaign back to the candidate for $8,340. Well, this is a good one, because the candidate actually gained money on this one. He made $7 on the transfer. The NDP actually transferred more money in than it invoiced him—

[An hon. member]

That's their accounting skill.

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

That's probably a reflection of the NDP's accounting skills. Nonetheless, this candidate was able to claim as a legitimate election expense over $8,300 and have that amount fully reimbursed by the national party fewer than 20 days later—in and out, in and out, the very transaction process the members opposite are saying is illegal, are saying is in violation.

How can it be? Elections Canada determined, in the case of this candidate, that clearly this candidate was not in violation because there was no fault; there were no findings that indicated there was a problem with this candidate's election return.

I don't know this to be true, but I would suppose that this candidate has already received his full election reimbursement, while our candidates, who have done exactly the same type of thing, are still waiting for theirs. Well, good for this candidate, but the argument I would advance to members of this committee, and I would certainly advance if I had an opportunity to intervene in the court case itself, is how can this candidate then be fault free and some of our candidates who engaged in the same process, the same protocol, were found to be at fault?

You simply can't have it both ways. There is no consistency with the argument advanced by Elections Canada.

I would like to have the opportunity, and I would like to think members of this committee would like to have the opportunity, to ask those very basic questions to officials at Elections Canada. Maybe they have a very good reason for doing what they have done. I can't see it, but I would like to have the opportunity to ask those questions.

Unfortunately, because of the obstructionist tactics of this committee—at least the opposition members of this committee—they're not allowing us to do so. All they would have to do to allow that examination or cross-examination of Elections Canada officials, all that would have to happen for that examination to take place, is for members opposite of this committee to agree to the motion I presented. I'm sure we could have the head of Elections Canada and all his officials in here, at the latest, by next Tuesday.

As you can quite clearly see, there are a lot of examples I have here that I'd love to question Monsieur Mayrand and his officials about, just to ask some very simple questions. How does this differentiate? How do the actions of NDP candidate Martin differ from the actions of our candidates? Please tell me. Educate me. Help me to understand why you found fault with us and some of our candidates when you found absolutely no fault with candidates from other political parties. I don't know. I'd like to get the answers to that. I would like to think that members of this committee would have answers to that.

Here's another one. I see Monsieur Godin is showing great interest in my testimony, so I want to continue along with some of the examples from the New Democratic Party.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

I will. It's a large document.

I will attempt to be fair in my testimony and bring examples from all political parties, as many as I can. But only because my friend and colleague, Monsieur Godin, has shown such great interest in my testimony, for his benefit I'll bring forward an example of another New Democratic Party candidate to further underscore my contention that all parties have engaged in the same process, this in-and-out transfer.

This is a candidate by the name of Barry Bell. The NDP—that is, the national party—invoiced candidate Bell for $2,944.91 in an invoice dated January 13, 2006. Again, 10 days before the election, the national NDP central campaign office invoiced this candidate for close to $3,000—$2,900 and change. Then, Mr. Chair, the candidate, Mr. Bell, claimed it as an election expense. About three weeks later, on February 2, 2006, the candidate deposited the same amount, $2,944.91.

In and out: the candidate received an invoice from the national party, paid the invoice for advertising, and then was reimbursed fully and totally by the national party a few weeks later—in and out.

How, Chair, are we to interpret that? How are we to possibly sit back and say we accept the findings of Elections Canada in which they say we violated some electoral rule by engaging in this in-and-out “scandal”. That's a term obviously coined only by members of the opposition Liberals, because there is no scandal here. We all know that.

That is the question I would like to ask. I can't. Why can't I? It is because committee members here won't allow it. Why won't they allow it? It is because they won't support my motion. My motion quite clearly states that we will bring forward all of our books for full examination. These individuals, members of this committee, could call as witnesses—and I'm sure they would—election officials, campaign officials, party officials, candidates, MPs.... I'm sure their list would be extensive.

The only thing we ask, Chair, is that we be allowed to do the same thing. We would bring forward as part of our witness list a request to examine executive directors and the financial officials who ran their respective campaigns in the 2006 election, and in fact in the 2004 election and the 2000 election.

We would bring forward some of their candidates and some of their members of Parliament and would ask them questions as to whether they were fully briefed about how this process works. We've already heard testimony, which I've read into the record—an e-mail from the NDP national office to Ms. Libby Davies and her campaign office stating, in effect, not to worry about paying the invoice they were sending her, because the federal party was going to fully reimburse it.

That's in the public record. It's part of our testimony; it's part of our affidavit. It seems to me from that e-mail, that reference I just made, that perhaps the national campaign team of the NDP had to explain how this scheme worked; otherwise, why would they try to give an explanation in their e-mail? And if that's the case, Mr. Chair; if the national campaign had to explain to a local candidate how this worked, it means that this scheme was the concoction of the national party. They were the ones who came up with this. They were the ones who said, “We've examined election guidelines and we see where we can make this happen, legally and above board.”

I mention that for the record, Chair, because part of the argument I have read, from allegations and testimony given by others, is that this was a duplicitous, an illegal scheme concocted by the national campaign team of the Conservative Party because they had to convince local candidates to enter into this scheme, had to tell local candidates what to do.

Chair, it's quite obvious that the NDP has some explaining of its own to do. Ms. Davies is an experienced parliamentarian. She's been through a number of election campaigns, yet it was still necessary, in the view of the NDP, to send her an e-mail telling her how this whole thing would work and assuring her that she really would not be out any money. They e-mailed her and said not to worry, that the invoice amount she would be paying would be fully reimbursed by the national party: “You won't be out any money.”

For any members opposite to allege that this was a protocol conceived by the national Conservative Party and forced upon local candidates is totally nonsensical, because we have evidence, which I've just produced, that says the NDP entered into the same thing. They had to explain to the local candidates how this whole thing worked. They had to e-mail them to say: “Here's the deal. We're going to invoice you. Pay the invoice, and we'll reimburse you. The ads will be national ads but they'll be played locally, and just as long as you tag your candidate's name and your authorization at the bottom, it will be okay, because we've cleared this through Elections Canada.”

Do you know something? They were right. Libby did nothing wrong. None of the examples I've given were violations of the Elections Act, none of them. They're completely within the rules.

What we did and what our candidates did was exactly the same. There is nothing that we did wrong, that was outside the rules of election campaigning.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I want to relate to you, because it's certainly germane to this conversation—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have a point of order from Ms. Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would just like to confirm that it's the committee's intention to continue sitting and break for the length of time it takes to do the votes this evening; otherwise we'll continue to sit despite the fact that question period is coming up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes, I was going to ask whether there would be a motion to adjourn. I doubt very much that it would pass, so it is my intention, as we've done in the past, to suspend until after question period and for any division bells that require us to vote.

So that's correct.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I hope Mr. Lukiwski will indulge me here. Perhaps, if you sought consensus in the committee, we'd be happy to sit through question period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay. We'll seek that in a few minutes. I'll let Mr. Lukiwski continue and I'll ask again in just a couple of minutes.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

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

Thank you.

As I was about to say, Chair, I'm going to give you a couple of examples that I believe are extremely germane to this conversation.

In one of my previous lives I was general manager of the Saskatchewan Party. Prior to that, I was executive director of the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan. I say that because a lot of my duties in that capacity were to deal with candidates and to deal with election financing. Frankly, we set up a number of regional advertising buys for all of our candidates. This is quite common with respect to provincial as well as federal parties.

The point I'm making is that back in, in believe, the mid-1990s, in Saskatchewan we set out to review and make changes to the Saskatchewan Election Act. What we used as a guide was the federal Elections Act. In other words, in many areas, when we had some doubt as to what we should do to amend the act or update the act, we looked at the federal Elections Act for some guidance. Wherever possible, we actually mirrored the federal Elections Act.

With respect to this regional advertising protocol, we looked at the federal act. That's why I know it fairly well, because I was quite involved with this for several elections in Saskatchewan. We discovered that if candidates wanted to group together, to all throw in some money and collectively buy some advertising--we call it a regional advertising buy--we could gain greater efficiencies. There are volume discounts and that type of thing.

As an example, in Regina the eleven candidates would each throw a couple of thousand dollars into a pool, and the $22,000 would be used to purchase a series of ads for the Regina candidates. The ads would play on a rotational basis, and all of the candidates, wherever the ad that had their name and authorization on it played, would be able to then claim the full portion of their $2,000 as an election expense item.

We cleared this through the Saskatchewan elections office. They assured us that this was absolutely acceptable. They also assured us that this was entirely consistent with the federal Elections Act. Of course, I had already known this, because I was on the committee that sort of redrafted many of the elements of the Saskatchewan Election Act.

So we went forward. And this is quite a common experience.

Now, here's the point that I think is important. The ads that these eleven Regina Saskatchewan Party or Progressive Conservative candidates ran were not individual ads promoting their own candidacy. They were the provincial ads. They were the ads promoting the party, but they had the candidate's tag line on it saying, for instance, “In Regina Rosemont, vote for...”, and authorized by the candidate's official agent.

So in no way, shape, or form did a candidate even attempt to have a local campaign ad promoting his or her candidacy. We didn't even show the face of the candidate in this ad. This was a provincial ad. It was one that had been running the entire election campaign, and yet it was considered as an eligible local campaign expense. The same thing has occurred in the 2006 election.

As I already read into the record, this is fully acceptable under Elections Canada guidelines. Earlier I gave you the exact wording, but I'll paraphrase it now, Mr. Chair. It states that a candidate can choose to run either a local or a national ad. That's fully up to the discretion and determination of the local candidate. That is allowed.

My understanding is that Elections Canada changed those guidelines about a year later, in 2007. Again I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that in any election in the future it must be a local ad only. You can't run a national ad if you're a local candidate. I may be wrong on that, but in any event, it's a moot point because the guidelines were changed in 2007, well after the 2006 election.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I don't mean to interrupt, Mr. Lukiwski, but I will just for formalities.

We have question period coming up in five minutes. Some members have duties during question period, so I want to put this on the record. Is there any will of the committee to suspend until after question period, or does the committee wish to continue right now?

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

I think Mr. Lukiwski is in a good mood. It's a very interesting story. We should continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's not give him much of a rest here.

[An hon. member]

He's on a roll.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I totally agree with you. That's fine. The sense of the committee is that we will continue meeting through question period.

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

Shouldn't we have a vote on this?