Debates of Feb. 11th, 2008

Canada Elections Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Jean has less than a minute left.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

As I said in winding up my speech, this is just another way of getting around the rules. Insofar as transparency and democracy are concerned, the Conservative Party could go over it again because the motions it brought before the House were rejected in committee.

The Bloc Québécois said it was not right that if someone took out a bank loan and failed to pay it back or had problems, his political party would be held responsible by default for paying to clean up the mess.

That is not how things work when a loan is taken out. Someone has to be the guarantor. A political group or pressure group cannot be told that its candidate borrowed money but failed to pay it back and now it is up to the group to do so in his stead.

That does not make sense. We therefore want this motion withdrawn.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I had the time for a question I certainly would want to enquire about some of the current cases before Parliament.

Bill C-29 aims to establish a system of improved accountability for candidates to report loans taken out during election campaigns. Its key elements include creating a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political parties, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors; ensuring that total loans, loan guarantees and contributions by individuals should not exceed the annual contribution limit for individuals established in the Canada Elections Act; and allowing only financial institutions and other political entities the capacity to make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals and only at commercial rates of interest.

Tightening rules for the treatment of unpaid loans is also important to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans by ultimately holding riding associations responsible for unpaid loans taken out by their candidates.

The bill was first presented to the House during the first session of Parliament as Bill C-54 and reintroduced in November of last year with essentially the same content as Bill C-54. The bill was very seriously examined during meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Members worked hard and agreed upon different elements, not the least of which was a significant improvement which now calls for unpaid amounts of the loan to be considered contributions after three years after the day on which it was made. The original government proposal was to make that period only 18 months. Now the government House leader is presenting motions that would completely disregard the other amendments that were passed at committee.

Government Motion No. 1 would delete the Liberal amendment to allow for annual contributions to a leadership candidate. Under this motion, for example, a person would be allowed to donate $1,000 to a leadership candidate in each calendar year until the leadership candidate paid his or her campaign debt and formally closed his or her leadership campaign.

Government Motion No. 2 would make it necessary for loans to be repaid annually rather than at the point when the loan becomes due. Effectively, this would prevent candidates from taking extended repayment loans. It makes no sense to set up an artificial limit on repayment.

Considering the fact that elections can be called at different times during the year, whether it be January, April or October, it is unreasonable for someone to be asked to pay off a loan before the time limit established by the loan contract. We see that the government is pushing hard on its perception of accountability.

Furthermore, as members of Parliament will know, once we are elected our focus shifts to doing our job, not to running in elections or raising money for elections. It, therefore, would be an absolute hindrance for anyone to have to focus on repaying by the end of a fiscal year if that is not the date that was agreed upon with the lender.

Government Motion No. 3 would delete the Bloc amendment that would have removed liability from registered political parties for loans taken by candidates. This motion would set up a system or a responsibility for registered political parties and riding associations, regardless of whether or not they are aware that the candidate has taken out a loan. Making one entity responsible for the personal debt of an individual does not sound responsible under any criteria.

The government waited for the original version of this bill to die with prorogation so that it could present new motions to completely obliterate the changes that had already been agreed upon democratically at committee.

There are some five bills in Bill C-2, many of which had progressed substantially through the legislative process. In fact, many of those bills would have been law today had the government taken the opportunity it had to reintroduce those bills at the same stage they were at when prorogation occurred.

As a consequence, we now find Bill C-2 as an issue of debate in this place simply because the government suggests that it should happen quicker. However, it engineered the delay in those pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is very similar to what has happened with regard to this bill.

Through this tactic, Canadians have seen that the government is clearly not interested in really working with the other parties to come up with sound legislation. It is only interested in continuing to pursue a philosophy of “my way or the highway” kind of legislative process. It is only interested in presenting political jabs disguised as draft legislation, and we have seen that time and time again on many bills.

While the government continues to repeat that Bill C-29 will finally stop the undue influence of wealthy contributors who were supposedly skirting Elections Act donation limits through the use of personal loans, the bill is clearly designed to disadvantage the Liberal Party of Canada financially and to limit access to the political process for many Canadians.

The fact is our party has demonstrated, in good faith, that we want to work to improve election laws. After all, our party was the one that passed the bill to limit the role of corporations and unions in election financing in Bill C-24 in 2003.

Our party also initiated the most significant contribution limit reduction in Canadian history. Furthermore, during our last leadership campaign, all candidates publicly disclosed all loans made to their campaigns and went above and beyond the requirement set out in the Canada Elections Act in this regard.

The Prime Minister still refuses to fully disclose the complete scope of financing of his own 2002 leadership campaign. Clearly the government is running a “Do as I say, not as I do” kind of operation. How can Canadians believe a government that does not want to practise what it preaches.The Liberal Party supports measures to make Canadians more confident in their politicians by seeking to improve the accountability of the electoral process.

We support the bill, as amended by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which includes the measures that were approved democratically by all of the parties.

Let me refer also to the activity within the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to which many important issues are referred and is represented by all parties. What happens is it is sometimes very dysfunctional in terms of deciding to do things or not to do things. In the case of the so-called in and out scandal, a filibuster has been going on since late October or early November on the ruling by the Chief Electoral Officer that the Conservative Party had breached the Canada Elections Act by transferring loans into and then out of candidates accounts. This kind of issue is very serious and the Chief Electoral Officer found that it was improper. The issue still is not out of procedure and House affairs committee. It is still not progressing because the government is filibustering.

For those who may be watching, a filibuster occurs when a party decides that it will continue to talk. There are no limits on talking when a motion is made. If the chair of that committee permits it to get too broad, effectively what we can do is continue to talk. When one member is finished, another member can get up and continue to talk. Therefore, we have a filibuster whereby the question before the committee never gets voted on and no action is ever taken.

We have seen that time and time again as a tactic. As members know, the government members were given a binder for their committees on how to disrupt the business of committees. Amendments were made to the bill at committee. Now they are being changed. There are all kinds of tactics, which I think Canadians would find very distasteful, with regard to respect for the rule of parliamentary procedures and law and how matters are handled.

I believe parliamentarians on committee, in reviewing the matter before us, did their job. They agreed upon the amendments. These have been tampered with yet again by the government to show bad faith in terms of respecting the fact that this is a minority government. It is important that we move now to make good laws and wise decisions. It does not include the changes proposed by the government.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to my hon. colleague. I am absolutely flabbergasted that the member of the House of Commons would dare talk about filibustering in a negative fashion.

I do not believe there is anybody in the House of Commons who speaks more often on more legislation, more motions, more points of order and more than the member. I think he has written the book on filibustering and wasting the time of the House on any number of issues. Anybody who happens to watch the parliamentary channel on television would be well acquainted with the member. It is a bit rich when he talks about filibustering and suggests that our members should not utilize that completely legitimate parliamentary tactic when necessary to make a point.

As to the issue before the procedure and House affairs committee, to which he referred, whereby the Liberal Party of Canada wants to ensure that the procedure and House affairs committee only looks at the Conservative Party of Canada's election expenses and not its own, why does the Liberal Party not want to open up its books?

We are more than willing to open up our books and have a complete review of everything we did during the last election campaign. All we are asking, and we have been asking it for months, is that the other three political parties do the same. Let us just treat all political parties equally.

I think all Canadians would be in favour of that and would be supportive of it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to address the hon. member's two areas of questions.

First, the member is quite right with regard to the first item. I do speak a fair bit in the House. In the last Parliament I spoke more than any other member in this place. I probably have had the same level of activity in the current Parliament.

However, it is not something that gets announced as what we do, but as a parliamentarian and a member of the Liberal team, we all have roles to play. We all have responsibilities.

The member will know that in the last Parliament and in this Parliament I have been designated as the permanent House duty officer, which means I am responsible for being in the place to participate in debate as necessary, to raise points of order, to ensure there are members in their places and to generally coordinate the activities. It does mean I speak a lot. It is not because I like to speak. I am doing my job.

I very much appreciate the kind words that members often give me when I have spoken. They know I do my homework and they know I do not waste the time of the House.

The second matter the member raised was with regard to looking at all parties with regard to the in and out scandal. The answer is very clear. The only reason the item is before the procedure and House affairs committee now is because the Conservative Party is the only party that has been charged with breaches under the Canada Elections Act by the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the member and his party are afraid to have their books investigated before the committee is because very imminently it will become public that their party is seeking ways to attract corporate money and big donations that exceed the limits and break the rules. How does he explain the Liberal Party's hiding its electoral finances?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member could know something about what somebody may do. It is not a fact. The fact is the Conservative Party has been found in breach of the Canada Elections Act by the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take the floor too often, for too long, in a pleasant fashion or otherwise, but I believe that, in this House, we must absolutely—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, but the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton wants to rise on a point of order, to which I will listen carefully.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, matters of law are of great importance and require precision in the House under the Standing Orders. This is why it was with deep regret when we heard the member across say that the Conservative Party had been charged by Elections Canada. There has been no such charge made. In fact, the Conservative Party is the plaintiff, taking Elections Canada to court, and that is a key point.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

That's debate, not a point of order.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Tell the truth about it. Tell the truth, that's the point.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Will the chief government whip please note the Speaker is rising.

As far as the point of order raised by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, whether it is a valid point or not, it is a point of debate and not a point of order.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us go at it again.

What is interesting in this House is that some debates often look like they are going to be calm affairs but then, all of a sudden, people's tempers are flaring. When we talk about the crux of the matter in an election, namely money, people often tend to get carried away.

I just understood what the Liberal Party member said, through the questions of the hon. whip from the other side, and I realize that the Conservative Party is extremely fragile and sensitive. It is even a little too sensitive when we talk about monetary issues during election campaigns.

After a 30-year legal career, I can say that the single most important quality that we want from a judge when we address the bench is neutrality, the appearance of neutrality. The judge must be above the fray.

The problem for MPs, for elected members in Canada and in Quebec, but particularly outside Quebec, is that we are now realizing that a number of members do not comply with the Elections Act. In Quebec, thanks to René Lévesque, the Quebec Elections Act, which was passed in 1977, improved the election process.

We would like it to be the same on the federal scene. Unfortunately, it is not always the case and some political parties—the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, not to mention this country's two oldest political parties—would really like nothing to change in that regard.

It has to stop, however, because the credibility of the elected representatives from those parties is at stake. I will likely be taking part in my third electoral campaign within a few weeks. I can assure the House that election expenses probably account for the largest part of our spending in an election. They must therefore be clear and transparent, and that should apply to every elected member of this House. Election expenses should be clear and transparent, and we should never hesitate to answer questions about our election expenses. That is unfortunately not the case.

We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of a return to rules that are smarter and more respectful of those who elected us.

My comments will focus on Motion No. 3, which would make the parties responsible for any debt incurred by their candidates, whether they know about it or not. In any legal system, to be a party to an action, one has to have been invited to take part, have been convicted and, more importantly, have been called upon by the court to defend himself or herself.

Through a motion, we would like to restore an amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois that we feel is absolutely essential: a political party cannot be held responsible for expenses incurred by a candidate, especially when it is not aware of such expenses. It seems pretty clear to me, and the same idea could be expressed both in French and in English: one cannot be responsible for a debt they know nothing about.

The government would like to come and impose upon the political parties the responsibility for debts that their candidates refuse or are unable to pay back.

I do not know about the other parties, but the Bloc Québécois always makes sure that it has reliable, sincere candidates who are capable of fulfilling their obligations. Election expenses have to be monitored carefully, not only by the candidate but also by the candidate’s financial agent, who should be there at all times to oversee and supervise election spending.

How can we assign liability to a political party when one of its candidates starts spending money that the political party does not even know about? That seems to us to be completely absurd and completely contrary to all of the laws in Canada, and in particular in Quebec, where the law says that no one can be a party to an action if he or she is not responsible for the damage caused or did not sign the contract.

If a political party is not aware of the money spent by its candidate, how can it be held liable for it? It seems to us to be absolute nonsense to require candidates not to pay. If you agree to a debt, you have to pay it, but we think it is nonsense for a party to be liable for a debt that it did not agree to.

The government would like to do something totally unacceptable: require a political party to be responsible for all debts that a candidate might incur during an election. That seems to us to be completely absurd and that is why the Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment that was agreed to by the committee. Suddenly, the government is making another attempt and once again wants the party to be responsible for a debt incurred by a candidate.

For example, if a candidate goes on a wild spending spree amounting to $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000, would the political party that he or she is representing be liable for it? That seems to us to be completely illogical and irrational, and most importantly contrary to the law in force in Quebec and Canada, under which, in order for someone to be a party to a contract, that person must have signed it, must be a party to it and must have set his or her hand to it or given approval for such a contract.

Obviously we are going to invite the House to rethink Motion No. 3 seriously so it can be defeated and we can come back to the amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois in committee. We are therefore calling for Motion No. 3 to be rejected.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for addressing this problem so clearly.

I would like to know what he thinks. He talked about a person who could take out a loan on behalf of a candidate or a candidate who could do so himself. Would it be possible for a candidate who planned on using such a law to make his political party pay back the loan to get loans himself from several people, and assume that, either way, he will never have to pay them back since the party will?

In the House, we know the parties that have a lot of money and that could say this is no problem, they would pay later and settle it all in three years. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks this could also be a possibility.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's competence is clearly reflected through his excellent question. I also happen to believe that he is absolutely right.

Some candidates could run in an election and spend money while thinking there will not be any problems. They were asked to run for a party, and since they are doing so, that party will foot the bill. It is as if someone went to a restaurant and told everyone that it is an open bar and that, in any case, he is not the one paying. It is the party that is paying.

This is totally unacceptable, and I think the hon. member is absolutely right. I believe, and I maintain that a candidate who runs in an election must be personally responsible for his expenditures. It is not up to the party to foot the bill at the end of the day, but to the candidate who ran. This would ensure that the candidate acts much more responsibly and is much more cautious with money, because he would be responsible for making sure that he is spending money properly and adequately. He would then be able to account for his expenditures before the House, which may not be the case for some candidates who ran under the Conservative banner in the last election.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just finished answering the question of the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi about these election expenses that pose a problem to Elections Canada. The Conservative Party is suing Elections Canada. I think the purpose of this suit is to keep the lid on something that is looking increasingly like a scandal, for as long as possible.

I would like my colleague to comment on a statement made by the second in command at Elections Canada, Janice Vézina, in this dispute between Elections Canada to the Conservative Party. In a written statement, Ms. Vézina argued that the Conservative Party failed to comply with the Elections Act by making its local candidates share in the cost of its national advertising, which, of course, allowed the party to spend more than permitted by law. As a result, the Conservative Party exceeded its spending limit by more than $1 billion.

Does this whole saga not show how the old political parties act instinctively? This is taking us back to the days when some parties had dead people voting for them. Once again, all sorts of tricks are being used to achieve their own ends and exceed the limit on election expenses.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is an insightful one.

It is obvious that there is a problem. That is why I am saying that individual candidates should be responsible for the expenses they incur during an election campaign. There is one word all of us in this House must remember and that is transparency.

We should never be afraid of expenses incurred in an election campaign. More importantly, we should never be afraid to answer questions designed to determine whether or not our election expenses were permissible and, more importantly, legally permitted, which does not seem to be the case here.

The poor woman must be on the verge of losing her job. We know of others who have been removed by the Conservative government.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the topic of Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

I know that many members of this House have worked hard on improving this bill at the committee stage and I certainly know that we all appreciate their hard work.

Let me begin by pointing out that many parts of this bill are based on recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his report to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In the report, the Chief Electoral Officer found that when loans are given to a political candidate by a person who is not regularly in the business of lending money, it could be perceived by some as a means to influence the political process with money.

As we in this House know, even the perception of influence peddling can be just as damaging to Canadians' views of the political process as unabashed influence peddling.

Some of the recommendations made in his report include ensuring that all loans from lending institutions be granted to a candidate at the going commercial rate. Another of his recommendations was to establish a limit on loans made by individuals that would be equal to their annual political contribution amount. For 2007 that amount was $1,100. Both of these recommendations found their way into the bill.

Now, corporations and unions would be prevented from making loans to political candidates and parties, just as they have been prevented from making campaign contributions. Individuals would be limited in the sum total of their contributions and loans for a given year. Both a loan and a contribution would now count toward their maximum annual limit.

Another important recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer was that the information surrounding any loans be made public in order to mitigate the chances of a perceived conflict of interest. According to the report, the information to be disclosed should include the identity of the lender, interest rates, and a repayment schedule for the loan.

I was pleased to see that during the Liberal Party's last leadership race, our candidates went above and beyond the call of duty to disclose this type of information. I believe it is an excellent idea that the other parties in this House be brought under the same type of scrutiny. There are still some people in this House, not least and most specifically the Prime Minister, who have not revealed the names of the people and organizations which contributed to his leadership campaign in 2002. This kind of secrecy is what leads many Canadians to become distrustful of the political process.

I encourage my colleagues on the Conservative side of the House to urge their leader to disclose those contributions as soon as possible. It could be a good subject to raise in this week's caucus two days from now.

I would now like to provide some background that will illustrate how we have arrived at the current set of laws governing political financing in this country.

The Liberal Party in fact has been at the forefront of the movement toward a more open and transparent process for political donations.

In 2003 the previous Liberal government introduced the first annual limits on individual contributions to a political party and/or candidate. In that same bill, it also limited contributions from corporations and unions to political parties. These changes stand today as the most significant ones that have been made to political financing laws in decades.

I was happy to support these changes in 2003 and I am happy to support Bill C-29 today, providing that the amendments made at committee are kept in place.

There is a danger that sometimes in our zeal to make things better we actually make things worse through a variety of unintended consequences. That is why I am glad to see that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs made some very well-intentioned and sensible amendments to Bill C-29 during its review of the bill this past December. The government itself brought forward some of these amendments.

Principally, they altered the bill to ensure that if a person makes a $1,100 loan to a candidate in a given year, say 2008, and that candidate repays the loan in that same year, then the donor would be able to make another $1,100 loan without going over his or her annual contribution limit. I think this was supported by all parties at committee stage.

There were some amendments which the government did not agree with, which I understand we will be voting on again here at report stage.

One such amendment has to do with who is liable for loans that go unpaid. The NDP, Bloc and Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs were concerned that the wording of the original bill could have made political parties responsible for loans that their candidates took without even knowing that their candidates had secured them.

If, for instance, a candidate were to take out a $20,000 loan without informing the central party that he or she had done so, the candidate could conceivably then declare bankruptcy after the election, forcing the registered political party to assume liability for the loan, despite the fact that the party had not authorized, approved, or even been aware of the loan in the first place.

For the parties that have representation in the House, this would certainly be an irritant, but it would by no means be catastrophic for them. The parties that this would really hurt are the ones not represented in the House, such as the Green Party and others like it, that field candidates in all regions of the country. For those parties, the possibility of assuming responsibility for a series of loans that their central parties were not even aware of would be extremely damaging to their future viability, and this of course would not be good for democracy.

A third amendment, which the government has tabled a motion to remove from the bill, has to do with loans to candidates when the campaign stretches across the January 1 new year.

Originally the bill only allowed for a single loan to a candidate during the course of the campaign valued at the maximum annual contribution limit. At committee stage it was agreed that should a campaign cross the new year divide, another loan could be made up to the annual contribution limit by an individual in the second year. I do not think I need to illustrate that. It is a clear point and I cannot see the problem the government has with that. We very recently had an election that spanned across the new year, and I think this is a sensible amendment. It is also important for all of our parties' future leadership races which might often run from one year into the next.

Without this amendment, a person who lends $1,100 to a candidate in December would be able to make a similar size donation to that candidate come January, but he would not be able to enter into a second loan agreement.

While this may seem like a trivial amendment to my colleagues over on that side of the House, I would suggest it is a common sense amendment, and I hope they will consider keeping it in the bill.

I could not speak to Bill C-29 without mentioning some of the concerns that have been raised in some quarters about the limits imposed by this bill.

First, there has been some concern raised by several financial institutions that this bill would, to a significant degree, give them some control over who has the ability to run for federal office or for leadership of a political party in this country. If a candidate is not able to meet the requirements of his or her bank to secure a loan, then that candidate will be severely handicapped in the early stages of his or her campaign.

I have the sense that banks are not worried so much about actually denying someone a loan in order to run for office. After all, they are professionals and will base their decisions on to whom to lend money on sound financial principles. The problem for them would be an apparent conflict of interest if one or several candidates from a particular party are denied loans while other parties do not seem to have any trouble.

I do not believe that these waters are unnavigable for the banks. I believe that in terms of provincial political loans some provinces already have in place measures similar to this one and the banks appear to have done fine in that respect. It is, however, something that we in the House must be mindful of and continue to monitor as we move forward.

There has also been some concern raised in some circles that this bill would severely disadvantage Canadians who are less well off and yet wish to run for political office. If a candidate has not built up sufficient equity or maintained a strong enough credit rating, he or she will be prevented from securing the loans that might help launch their political careers. I know that the National Women's Liberal Commission made a submission to the procedure and House affairs committee that outlined such a concern.

As I said earlier, I will be supporting Bill C-29 with its current amendments, but I would hope that if in the future it became evident that these types of problems were occurring, the House would be willing to reopen the issue and ensure that the problems were resolved.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member congratulated the procedure and House affairs committee for all its work, although I guess in some weird way I should thank the member for all the work because we have been trying to close the holes that the Liberals found to get contributions in very tricky ways. I remember when there were $5,000 dinners and we had to close that loophole. Then there were donations from kids for $5,000 and we had to close that loophole.

The latest one in this act is really a good one. Let us say that a party that we might call the L party had a candidate running for leadership, and let us just call that candidate D. He borrows $800,000 from the bank, which is guaranteed by, let us say, his brother. Then he defaults on that $800,000 loan, making his brother pay it. The banks are happy, but the brother happened to make an $800,000 contribution, which is completely against the intent of the law. There are a number of members on that side, most of them sitting on the frontbench, who did exactly that.

I would like to ask the member if he intends to endorse that kind of a policy, or is the member actually going to encourage members of his party to follow the law's intent and stop making the procedure and House affairs committee work so hard?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this mysterious person that the hon. member was referring to is perhaps the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. Some of the characteristics he described may fit that case. I am not sure if that is true, but it was a rather mysterious person he was describing.

The other point I would make, however, is that the member, as a member of the committee, has a bit of nerve to stand in his place and make criticisms of others when it is in fact his party which is conducting a reprehensible filibuster in order to get out of the $1 million in and out scandal that his party is facing today.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his participation in this important bill, which I think all hon. members would like to see move forward, but with the amendments of the committee, not with the kinds of shenanigans that the government is playing.

During the debate, the chief government whip wanted to talk about the so-called in and out scandal. I am pretty sure that most Canadians are not familiar with what exactly happened and the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer initially found the Conservative Party to be in breach of the Canada Elections Act with regard to this activity, which has subsequently been sustained.

I wonder if the member could inform the House and all Canadians about the seriousness of the matter that has been debated in the House.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians would agree that it is reprehensible behaviour on the part of any political party to disobey and break the law. This is what Elections Canada has charged with regard to the Conservative Party in terms of $1 million of misspending during the election campaign.

I might add, and this is a point that seems to elude the Conservatives, that no other party in the House or in this country has been charged the way the Conservatives have by Elections Canada. It is only the Conservative Party behaviour that has been criticized.