Mr. Speaker, I know that you are seeking further information from the opposition House leader. I will not comment on that. I am sure those arrangements can be made at another time.
If I understood the allegation, it was described as the matter of. I believe what we are referring to is an allegation as opposed to the matter of. In other words, nothing here has been proved nor acknowledged to be as the hon. member has said.
If I understand correctly what has been alleged is that the Prime Minister's exempt staff disobeyed Treasury Board guidelines which require that staffers working on a campaign must do so on their own time and not during office hours. I believe the member also alleged that the rules applying to the Board of Internal Economy for the employees of the House of Commons also apply to others who are not employees of the House of Commons. I believe that is the second point he raised. In view of the imprecision, it has to be gleaned that way.
First, I suggest that the salaries of ministerial staffers are paid for by government funds. That is why the guidelines provide that staffers who work part time on campaigns must do so outside regular office hours. There is difficulty in ascertaining what are off-hours particularly in offices such as the Prime Minister's given that people work very long hours and the hours of work vary on a daily basis. Staffers as we know, especially those of us who have seen how hard the Prime Minister works, may work at all hours of the day and evening and sometimes even later than that.
To ensure complete transparency accounts followed the Chief Electoral Officer's guidelines concerning campaign workers. The value and the number of hours worked by staffers on the Liberal campaign on a part time basis were estimated. This sum was accurately recorded in the party's election expense return as a contribution to the Liberal party. The Liberal Party then settled the cost of these salaries with the Government of Canada and paid the amount. To remove any doubt, salaries have been paid back to the government so that no one would actually make the allegation that has been made today, or at least if it was made, it would be totally invalid.
The Treasury Board guidelines referred to earlier today, albeit somewhat indirectly as the Chair has just reminded us, say “Should a member of the minister's or secretary of state's exempt staff decide to become actively involved on a full time basis in a federal, provincial or territorial election or by-election, the member is required to take leave without pay or resign their position”.
The following sentences are the operative ones: “If a member becomes engaged in campaign activities on a part time basis, their involvement must be on their own time and not during regular office hours. No vacation leave or any other form of leave with pay will be permitted for election purposes”.
The Elections Canada Act provides that labour donated to a campaign which is paid for from a source other than the registered party must be recorded as a contribution to the registered party.
The Liberal Party returns for the June 2, 1997 general election, and those can be proven, included a contribution of $43,389 which represents the salaries of several of the Prime Minister's staff who worked part time on the Liberal Party's campaign. The cost was correctly recorded as a contribution. We did this in order to be more prudent than was absolutely necessary.
However, to address the fact that the salaries of such workers were paid by the Government of Canada and not the Liberal Party of Canada at that time, the Liberal Party subsequently reimbursed the government for the cost of the salaries. In other words, not only were the rules strictly observed, but we went overboard to ensure that nothing would be seen, albeit incorrectly, as being untoward. The allegations made by the member are incorrect.
Finally, the member informs us that even if contempt is not defined and not restrictive, the Speaker should rule nonetheless that this issue is one of contempt of the House. It is correct that contempt is not strictly defined in the rules but that does not mean that Mr. Speaker nor the House should get themselves involved every time someone from the newspapers alleges there has been what he considers to be a breach of the law, even when such is not a breach of the law in particular.