Evidence of meeting #2 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chairman.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I simply want matters to be clear. The motion now before us says that the Conservative party exceeded its national campaign expense limit. Maybe I wish we'd exceed our national expense limit one day...
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
... but we can't afford it. We've never spent the maximum allowable amount.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Therefore, the same accusation cannot be levelled against our party.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Order.
Folks, when I call order, I would hope that you would not force me to have your microphones turned off.
That is debate. I am allowing a lot of lateral movement on the debate, but we are back to the main motion at this point.
Monsieur Lemieux, you are on my list, followed by Mr. Godin, followed by Mr. Preston.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I'd like to put forward an amendment to the motion. It would read as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2004 and 2006 federal elections, in relation and in comparison to the election campaign expenses of the Liberal Party of Canada, and where Elections Canada has refused to reimburse some Conservative candidates for election campaign expenses.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Do you have a copy of the motion in writing, please, Mr. Lemieux?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, I've read the amendment and you have heard the amendment. I'm ruling the amendment in order.
Mr. Lemieux.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I think it's important that we have a real honest look at this amendment. One of the things the Conservative Party has always said is that our practices have been in full conformity with the law. They follow the spirit of the law, they follow the letter of the law, and they're in accordance with the practices of other parties. I think this is a key point, that they are in accordance with the practices of other parties.
I believe the Liberals would be the first to say, although it's hard to believe, that this is not a partisan attack, that their motion is not partisan at all. They want to have a fair and equitable look at what happened in the last election. If this is true, then let's open the books of our party and let's open the books of the Liberal Party in 2004 and 2006. What we'll see is that when we state in fact that our actions have been in accordance with the actions of other parties, we will in fact find that. I think it's an important distinction. I think this is worthy of debate and it should be supported by my fellow members around the table.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You cut me off when I tried to raise a point of order. I just wanted to pass along a bit of information. When the NDP transferred some funds, it had not reached its national expense limit. Therefore, the issue is clear. The only party to which Elections Canada refused to transfer funds—the 60% rebate—was the Conservative Party. The only issue on the table at this time involves the Conservative Party.
Elections Canada officials didn't say that we acted improperly. Their regulations state that funds can be transferred, but that the national campaign expense limit cannot be exceeded. The question before us today is the spending limit of the Conservative Party. The party transferred funds to the ridings, over and above this limit, and they wanted to recoup some of the money they spent. I'd like to tell my colleague Mr. Epp that there is a major difference between the two scenarios.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Actually, the chair is slightly confused, Mr. Godin. Maybe you can clarify. You're suggesting that the motion we're debating or that we want to debate and now has been amended is actually not dealing with the legitimacy of the transfers from the national party to the local party because in fact the NDP have done that. The issue is that those transfers went beyond the limit. I'm confused.
I'm hearing that's what you said but that's not what you meant. Would you mind just...?
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
What I'm saying is that Mr. Epp stopped just short of levelling some accusations, whereas our party is not the focus of an Elections Canada investigation. This motion clearly says that the Conservative Party is the focus on this investigation and that Elections Canada officials have refused to reimburse the funds. Furthermore, they may be ready to launch this investigation. For these reasons, we will be supporting this motion.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you for clarifying that.
We are now going to Mr. Preston.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you very much.
I love the thought that we're willing to move forward and have everything brought to the table and have witnesses called today, or soon, so this committee can look at the issues we're talking about. It seems everyone else wants to hold up a wall or a barn door in front of their party and say, “But not us, not us.” We're happy to move forward and talk legitimately about what Elections Canada is doing, but the rest, specifically the Liberals in this motion, would like it not to be comme-ci, comme ça, that it would happen for them too.
We talk about democracy, but of course they have had some trouble with that lately in their voting habits. We'd like to look at all things. I think this motion moves that forward in a very legitimate way. We're opening up with two years or two different elections. We're opening up our party and we'd like them to say, “You know what, we've got nothing to hide, let's look at our books too.” If they can't say that today, then we'll understand where it's coming from.
Mr. Chair, you ruled the motion in order. I think it's very appropriate for the people of Canada.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to Mr. Lemieux's amendment, Mr. Chairman, once again the Conservative filibuster continues. We went around this same mulberry bush in September.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chairman, let's understand what they're doing. Mr. Godin is absolutely right, the issue is not about whether parties can transfer moneys to local campaigns; that is an accepted practice. Elections Canada has not ruled or held or found--whatever word Mr. Reid appreciates--that this was the problem. The issue is that the Conservative Party transferred money to individual ridings for expenses that Elections Canada has ruled, held, and found are not in fact legitimate local expenses. They were not incurred by the campaign. They were in fact national campaign advertising expenses. And Mr. Godin is right, the problem with that for everybody is that they then suddenly exceed the national spending limit by more than $1 million.
With respect to the amendment, again trying to delay the committee's conclusion, Mr. Lemieux talks about the 2004 election. I had hoped he would have a chance to read Professor Flanagan's book. Professor Flanagan makes it very clear that they thought about doing this scheme in 2004 but didn't have the money and decided against it; but good news, in 2006 they found a way to get around the federal national spending limits by doing exactly this scheme. So Professor Flanagan, I think, enlightened Conservative colleagues with respect to the 2004 campaign.
The question remains, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Flanagan was very clear on this score in 2004. Back then, the Conservatives had contemplated skirting the Elections Act in this manner, but, for various reasons—perhaps they didn't have enough money, weren't sure enough or thought they would lose anyway—they didn't actually do it. So then, Mr. Lemieux' amendment was a tactic aimed quite simply at systematically obstructing or delaying the process. However, in 2006, Professor Flanagan concluded that the Conservatives had found another ingenious way of getting around the electoral spending limit by exceeding the national limit by more than $1 million.
Mr. Chairman, this is a systematic, concerted effort from a national campaign. It's not about a local candidate who lost some receipts for pizzas. That's not the issue. The issue is that 66 Conservative campaigns--and we've heard from some of their candidates--were pressured by the national campaign and aggressive e-mails from people like Mr. Donison saying, you must sign a bank transfer before we transfer the money to you; it's just an in-and-out transaction. Those are their words.
Mr. Chairman, again, Mr. Lemieux is trying to say that we should look at other parties' practices. Well, Elections Canada has looked at every other party's practices and has found that only the Conservative Party practices in fact don't comply with the law.
Mr. Chairman, the ridiculous idea that the spending practices of other parties during past election campaigns should be examined does not hold water. Elections Canada, which has a mandate to apply the legislation, conducted an investigation and found that in 2006, only the Conservative Party had violated the act in a serious way, in at least 66, if not more, ridings. Elections Canada officials referred the files to the Chief Electoral Officer and refused to illegally refund the taxpayers' dollars claimed by the Conservatives. An investigation was opened and criminal charges could eventually be laid.
That's the issue. It's the Conservative Party's systematic attempt to evade the election financing limits by using an in-and-out laundromat.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lemieux is not sincere when he suggests that we should look at other parties' practices. Elections Canada looks at them--
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is out of order to question the sincerity of another member.