Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I addressed a question to the Minister for Democratic Reform concerning Mr. Robert Cooling who was appointed to the Moncton board of referees for employment insurance.

The minister's response was to reiterate, at the expense of and in the minister's words to myself and I guess all of us asking these questions, that we were “being tedious” and that all the Conservatives' campaigning financing activities were legal and that they followed the intent of the law, but not necessarily the letter of the law.

The minister also stated that the appointments his government makes are all qualified and that it does not engage in patronage appointments to those who are not qualified.

From my vantage point the only qualification I can see for this patronage appointment was that Mr. Cooling was the official agent for the Conservative Party in the Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe riding during the last election.

His qualification then it seems would be his financial deftness at moving several thousands of dollars in and out of the national campaign to help avoid advertising expenses in the local riding.

We were given an answer to the questions and I find myself here again tonight asking this question. I promise if I get a straight answer I will not call the minister or his representative tedious.

Specifically, the question would be this. What qualification does Mr. Cooling have other than being an official agent during the defeated campaign for the Conservatives in Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe that would make him a good fit for the appointment?

I refer to the qualifications for a member of the board of referees. He or she must be independent and impartial. His or her qualifications must include a high school diploma. His or her experience can be in the community, in the voluntary sector, in the business sector, in the professional sector or in the government sector. He or she must have experience in leading group discussions and, get this, experience in interpreting and applying rules, presumably not the rules of Elections Canada however.

I have also information that during his tenure as official agent, Mr. Cooling shuffled some $7,479 from the national campaign to the riding and then back again in an in-and-out scandal.

There are other names on this list of 66 in-and-outers, but I think it is important to know whether Mr. Cooling was part of a lawsuit initiated against Elections Canada and in that case whether he knew he was omitted or discontinued in the lawsuit against Elections Canada.

Lise Vallières, who acted for a riding in Quebec, had no knowledge she was removed from the docket, which I have here, and we also have a lawyer's letter which is profound with respect to whether or not Mr. Cooling had knowledge of what it was he was involved in.

Was Mr. Cooling qualified, other than being the official agent for the position he received from the government, to be a member of the board of referees for the Employment Insurance Commission?

6:15 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here in response to the question of my hon. colleague from Moncton.

Off the top let me say that, as always, we as the new government in Canada have been making qualified appointments, rather than following the former practice of the former Liberal government of making appointments of nothing more than hacks and flacks of all descriptions from the Liberal Party. We will continue with our practice because that is the right thing to do.

In fact, in a recent Ottawa Citizen news article, the reporter reflects upon the fact that of the many hundreds of appointments already made by this government, the majority have been to “eminently qualified Canadians”. Although there were some with political connections, he did not say “patronage” because these people, even though they might have had a political connection of some sort, were also qualified.

I think that is distinctly different from the actions of the previous Liberal government. In fact, I think if we contrast our record with the previous Liberal government's record on appointments, we will find that there is no comparison whatsoever. I think all Canadians can remember the catchphrase from the former Liberal cabinet minister appointed to a very senior post in the public service, who said when he appeared before committee, “I'm entitled to my entitlements”.

That encapsulates in a nutshell the attitude of the former government when it came to making patronage appointments, particularly when it came to the EI board and the Immigration and Refugee Board. I have a few examples of the many hundreds of the Liberal government's former practices.

The first one is I think very relevant in light of the news story that has just been broken in the last day or two. This appointment I think would be of interest to many Canadians. The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, after losing the 2004 election, was given a taxpayer funded trip to Kabul. I think it is very relevant, because we find that this very member, who is in fact my hon. colleague's former bench mate, is in today's news for having resigned from caucus due to allegations about improper spending in the last election campaign.

In fact, what my hon. colleague calls the in-and-out scandal is no scandal at all inasmuch as we have duly reported all the transactions in the last election, the transfers between the national party and the riding associations, as we were compelled to by electoral law, and they are open for anyone to see. Admittedly, there is a dispute between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada, but that is why we have insisted on a court case to clear our good name.

On the other hand, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country apparently did not report all of his election financing requirements. In other words, there were many cash payments when there should not have been cash payments made for services received. Services received were not reported on the member's election return, which is a clear violation of electoral law, punishable by fines or imprisonment or both.

I can only say this. It appears to me and I think to most Canadians that the Liberal Party of Canada has not learned one lesson that all Canadians thought it should learn. That member knows, as well as I do, that the Liberals were the masters of patronage, the masters of hiding the facts and the masters of hiding money. That is why Canadians determined they were no longer fit to govern.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, there was not a word, not an answer at all, about Mr. Cooling. I am just trying to get at what happened in Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. I do not want the whole sorry story of Conservative litigation.

The parliamentary secretary says this is a “dispute”. It is a lawsuit and it involves the Federal Court of Canada and the names Neil Drabkin, Andrew House and Aaron Hynes. The lawyer's letter says these people did not get any reward. It states that “it is defamatory to suggest...that the positions that these individuals have or have had on Ministers' staffs are 'rewards' for having engaged in illegal conduct”.

However, this letter from the lawyer for these individuals does not mention Mr. Cooling. By inference, does that mean that Mr. Cooling did receive a reward because he is not mentioned in the correspondence from the hon. member's party in this little dispute?

Dispute? It is taking taxpayers' money to defend against Elections Canada for a dispute. If it is not all that big a deal, I suggest to my hon. friend that he and his party drop the lawsuit. It cannot be that bad a thing if there is nothing to it. Let them drop the lawsuit and let the people of Canada decide who--

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we find the typical Liberal actions. They can make statements in this House defaming honest citizens, yet when we invite them to go outside this House where they do not have parliamentary privilege and immunity, they fail to do so.

Liberals mentioned time and time again in the last week or so names of people, honest people, who are working for this government and they have defamed them in the House by saying that because of their relationship to Conservative candidates or Conservative members of Parliament they were rewarded in some fashion with jobs.

Yet, when we ask them to go outside and make those very statements where they are devoid of any parliamentary privilege or immunity, they fail to do so.

I invite the member today who has made those very comments, in effect defaming Mr. Cooling, to go outside and say that the only reason he received a job was because of what the member considers to be illegal activities. Please go outside and make those comments and we will see what happens in the next court case.

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m. )