Evidence of meeting #153 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Forgive me. Can I just stop and ask a factual question in the middle of that? Was the illegal contribution you're referring to made to the Conservative Party of Canada or was it to a riding association of the Conservative Party of Canada? Do you know?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I'm not 100% familiar, but if you're supportive of that, that's a question that can be asked.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Does anybody know the answer to that question? The compliance agreement with Pierre or with his campaign suggests it was to his riding association as opposed to the Conservative Party itself—unless this was in the context of his being the minister at the time. I'm just trying figure out what.... You can understand my concern for precision. I don't want put down a factually incorrect statement in a motion. If you can figure that out—I just don't have the information in front of me—then we could.... I see what you want to do. I want to make sure it's correct, and then we could probably vote in favour of it.
Chris, Stephanie looked this up on the CBC's website. It says here—and I'm quoting from the relevant news story—“The Conservative Party of Canada netted far less as a result of the scheme. The party received $3,137, while various Conservative Party riding associations and candidates were given $5,050.” Are we sure this is in the context of the...? Yes, it is. Sorry, I'm just seeing this now, $83,534 to the Liberal Party, various Liberal associations....
Would you be open to a bit of an amendment to your amendment, Chris? No. Do you mind if I...?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Okay. Yes, that's true. Anyway, let me tell you what it is and you can decide about it.
I think what we're getting at is that if we're going to do this, it would make sense to make it to the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada and various riding associations of the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada. That would be the suggestion. What you're really doing is that you're pointing out that, in addition to SNC-Lavalin having given money to the Liberal Party of Canada, it gave it to the Conservative Party of Canada, which is obviously factually correct. Additionally it was to various riding associations of both parties.
If we want to bring in Pierre Poilievre, I assume it's because we're making reference to his riding association. I assume it must have one of them. Nepean—Carleton, I'm guessing. Therefore, we would have to make reference to the riding association donations or we're getting someone who literally can't talk to the subject matter. I would want, as well, to extend it to include the relevant members of Parliament, both Conservatives and Liberals, for both parties. That might take a bit of research to find out who they are, but would that seem reasonable to you? We're basically trying to extend the net to include everybody who has been included on both sides.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
To which we should add, actually, that in the same article, they're talking about four candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party who received funds as well.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Yes, according to the article. I have it in French, too.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Okay. Unfortunately, this is not my phone. It just locked, so I can't.....
Maybe, if we're doing that, we should say, “and leadership candidates” and then “consult with any or all of the individuals who were...”.
Guy, I'm looking at you for this. If we're mentioning Pierre by name, we should probably mention any of the people involved who signed compliance agreements.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
In the article, there are no names involved, so I cannot tell you which ones.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Right.
I'll stop there because I've managed to not actually come up with a single wording, but that would be my suggestion as to how to deal with this amendment.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I don't agree to this as a friendly amendment. We believe that the hypocrisy of this should be pointed out. That's why the motion should include.... I believe that if we say “Liberal Party of Canada” and “Conservative Party of Canada,” we've included riding associations and whatnot. I think that's—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
To me it doesn't matter, but I think the important thing is to have.... I guess the most shocking thing was to have Mr. Poilievre come down here and question the integrity of the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Elections Canada.
He himself received and negotiated a compliance agreement, which is a valid legal settlement, so if the Conservative Party is going to criticize what the commissioner did on one thing, they should also attack Mr. Poilievre's also receiving one, and maybe demand that he see his day in court as well. Let's keep it all in there. I'd like to keep my amendment as it is.
12:10 p.m.
A voice
If he could be asked to provide a wording—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
He's not accepting the wording, so there's no need for a revised wording.
I'm going to suggest another revision then. I'm very glad this is not an in camera meeting.
I'm working from what I have written down as Chris's proposed amendment, which is itself an adjustment to my motion. It would read, “That the Commissioner of Canada Elections and Pierre Poilievre appear before the Committee to discuss the illegal contributions made by SNC-Lavalin to the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada and their riding associations, and his decision to issue compliance agreements”.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I guess so. I don't actually know at this point what it would be procedurally.
Could it be considered a subamendment? Is that permissible?
May 7th, 2019 / 12:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Let's do it that way. That way we can have an up and down vote on that one if we wish, or further debate.
May I assume, Mr. Chair, that we're in the debate on the subamendment now?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Okay.
I think this accomplishes covering most things. It does not cover the four contributions that Mr. Caron mentioned with regard to party leadership contestants, simply because I think we were spiralling into a lot of confusion, but it does deal with the key subject matter at hand, which is SNC-Lavalin's unlawful contributions. Nobody disputes that because there are compliance agreements out there. Everybody's in agreement, including the recipients, that these were not lawful contributions. This provides a really good opportunity to look at the underlying question.
I went to some lengths, in reading that statement, to make the point that this is not about trying to cast aspersions on any elected official or staffer up here. This is about trying to find out how justice is administered in this particular case, and there is no better way to do it than via a study that encompasses all those who were recipients of these illegal contributions at the level of electoral riding associations.
That's my sales pitch.
