EVIDENCE Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs NUMBER 014 2nd SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, February 5, 2008 Le mardi 5 février 2008 Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE February 5, 2008 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 014 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 014 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 014 (Version officielle) 14 05 02 2008 2008/02/05 11:05:00 House of Commons Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs PROC Chair Mr.

Gary Goodyear 39 2 (1105) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC)) : Colleagues, let's bring our meeting to order. As members know, we had to suspend last time due to disorder. We will pick up where we left off. We are now resuming debate on the motion. [ Translation ] Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) : Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Michel Guimond : Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on behalf of my colleagues from the three opposition parties.

Before beginning, we require a decision on your part with regard to the procedure for the closing of the meeting. We have been called here to sit today for this 14th meeting. The notice of meeting says that we are to sit from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Consequently, could you provide me with your

interpretation, in other words must the meeting imperatively end at 1 p.m. or might it go on for as long as there are speakers wishing to discuss the motion brought forward by Mr. Lukiwski? Would you please share your decision with us? [ English ] The Chair : I don't think there's a decision needed on that. In the past we have left that kind of thing up to the committee for the most part. And as usual, I'll be looking for a motion to adjourn as we approach one o'clock. Are there any other points? [ Translation ] Mr.

Michel Guimond : If I understand correctly, we may continue to sit beyond 1 p.m. if there is no motion to adjourn. [ English ] The Chair : It will be entirely up to the committee. [ Translation ] Mr. Michel Guimond : Perfect, let us not go any further. [ English ] The Chair : Merci. Mr. Lukiwski, please. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) : Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate the earlier comments by Monsieur Guimond that he's taking his pills, that he's going to be relaxed and attentive, because I think the motion that I introduced last meeting, Chair—and I'll again refresh the committee's memories as to why I brought it forward—is extremely important, inasmuch as there have been allegations, both from Elections Canada and members of the opposition parties, that the Conservative Party in the 2006 election had contravened the Canada Elections Act. How they have done this, allegedly, has been that they overspent the national advertising cap.

The method in which they did that, again according to the allegations, was by these supposed in-and-out advertising schemes, in which local campaigns would run national ads and be reimbursed by the federal party. I am prepared today, Mr.

Chairman, to give many examples of how that practice works, but as I said in the last meeting, the position of the Conservative Party is that, one, we did absolutely nothing wrong, that we did not in fact contravene the Elections Act; and secondly, that the practices used by the Conservative Party in the 2006 election were consistent with and entirely similar to the advertising practices of all other federal parties, at least the major federal parties, those being the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Liberal Party of Canada. That was the genesis of my motion, Mr. Chair.

To anyone who has more than just a passing knowledge of this committee's work, there is an apparent—I would say very overt—attempt by members of the opposition to examine only the Conservative Party's election practices, their spending practices in the 2006 election, not because they truly want to get to the bottom of this and to examine what happened and whether or not the Conservative Party was in contravention of election laws, but merely to try as best they can to embarrass the government. We have been the only party, Mr.

Chair, as you know, that has consistently stated that we are more than willing to enter into a study or an examination of all of the election spending practices of our party with one condition, and it is that all parties' election books are examined. In fact, Chair, we stated we would go beyond that, not just for the 2006 election, but we would go back to the 2000 and 2004 elections. We would willingly bring out books for examination to this committee as long as the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, and the New Democratic Party did the same.

We suggested this would be an appropriate course of action, Chair, and that's why I brought this motion forward for two very basic reasons. The overriding reason, of course, Chair, is that we think it's a matter of fairness. If we're going to examine the Conservative books, then we should definitely be in a position where we examine all parties' books, because, Mr. Chairman—and this is my second point—as we contend, not only have we done nothing wrong, but we have engaged in the same practices as opposition parties, and these practices, Chair, are entirely within electoral law.

In other words, we are contending, Chair, that not only did we do nothing wrong in the 2006 election with respect to our advertising, but neither did any of the other parties.

(1110) I think there may be a slight misconception on behalf of the general public on that issue. There may be some who think we are attempting to examine the other parties' books because we feel they did something illegal. We have never stated that. We have repeatedly stated...and I think you will find, if you examine the records of this committee's testimony, that I have repeatedly stated that my belief is that with respect to the so-called in-and-out advertising scheme, no party did anything wrong.

All of the practices followed by opposition parties complied fully with electoral law, as did the practices of the Conservative Party of Canada. Yet time and time again, when I try to bring this forward--my motion was just the latest in a long list of motions similar to this that we brought forward to this committee--the opposition parties absolutely reject it outright. They refuse to accept this motion. The only

interpretation that I think most people can have of their actions is that they must have something to hide. Otherwise, why are they refusing to allow an examination of their books? If, as they contend, they did absolutely nothing wrong and they complied fully with the law, why are they then so resistant to this examination? Chair, I would suggest to you that they're doing so for partisan political reasons. They may well know that they did nothing wrong, but they are attempting to create a scandal where no scandal exists.

They are attempting, as they have many times in the past with other issues, to create an impression that the Conservatives have broken the law or done something illegal with respect to election spending. We reject that argument outright. In fact, Chair, one of the reasons we have brought a court action forward is to prove in a court of law that we have done absolutely nothing wrong. We absolutely, vehemently oppose the Elections Canada ruling or

interpretation of elections law that only the Conservative Party did something wrong in the 2006 election. That's why we have brought forward a case that will be heard in Federal Court, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Chair, later in this meeting, and perhaps even in subsequent meetings, I'll be bringing examples forward to members of this committee, reading into the record some of the testimony that we will be presenting in Federal Court, and showing members of this committee fully and completely the argument we propose, the argument that exonerates us, that shows without question that the Conservative Party of Canada did absolutely nothing wrong.

As I mentioned in the last meeting and will mention again today, if this committee were truly interested in getting to the bottom of this, they wouldn't need to bring this matter forward at the committee level for examination, because in the court case that will hear our arguments, all of the facts regarding our election spending in the 2006 election will be presented. In fact, I think it very fair to say that if one is to have a complete and fulsome discussion on our advertising practices, a court of law is the best place for that discussion to take place.

To give another example, Chair, we have seen what's happening currently in the Mulroney and Schreiber affair. The ethics committee is having their own examination, yet almost to a person, the members of that committee and the editorial and political columnists agree that the only way to really get to the bottom of this is through the public inquiry, which we all know, of course, the Prime Minister has already called. I would suggest that the same situation is in play here.

(1115) There will be a court case heard to determine whether the Conservative Party of Canada broke any election laws. We contend that we did not. That case will be heard before a judge in federal court. That testimony and the results obviously will be made available to not only the Canadian public, but certainly to all members of this committee. In fact, much of the testimony I will be giving today is coming from an affidavit we have presented that really sets out our legal case. This affidavit is again available to all members of this committee.

I'm very surprised that they don't have copies of it with them, because when we start discussing this and I start bringing some of our evidence forward, they could follow along. Mr. Chair, again I go back to the overriding issue that appears to be at play here, that members of the committee from opposition parties don't seem to really want to get to the bottom of this. They don't really want to have strictly an information-gathering exercise. What they are attempting to do by bringing forward their own motion, put forward by Ms. Redman, is to examine only the Conservatives' advertising practices in 2006.

Their motivation is simply this: to try to get some headlines, to try to embarrass the government, to try to somehow create a perception that it was only the Conservatives who broke electoral law. We reject that completely and wholly, Chair; therefore, we brought forward our own motion, which said we are more than willing to have an examination and have a study of our election practices— The Chair : Excuse me, Mr. Lukiwski; my apologies. There seems to be a lot of peripheral noise in the room, and I know it's not coming from members at the table.

If we could have some of the folks in the background keep the noise down, that would be excellent. Mr. Lukiwski, you have the floor. Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Thank you, Chair. Again, I want to make sure that we're quite clear on the motivations of everyone here.

The motivation, clearly, from the opposition side is that they want to have a discussion for media purposes to try to get some headlines, to get some media stories going that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examines Tory election spending practices, and they want to have stories coming out that because of the alleged illegal activity of the Conservative Party a standing committee of the House of Commons is examining their books. In fact, Mr. Chair, they don't use the word “examine” or “study” in the motion put forward by the members opposite, they use the term “investigate”. Mr.

Chair, if that doesn't make apparent what the opposition is up to, I don't think anything else I say could convince you, because it is absolutely, fundamentally, obviously true that the only reason and the only motivation that the opposition members have to bring forward a motion, as they have done, is to try to score some cheap political points. In fact, Mr.

Chair, if they don't appreciate the fact that the examination that would take place in a Federal Court case could bring more disclosure and more light to our practices, then I would suggest all they are attempting to do is create some form of kangaroo court at this committee level. Mr. Chair, I see absolutely no reason why the motion that I presented could not be agreed upon by members of this committee, yet we see total and absolute resistance from the members of this committee with respect to my motion.

Again, I would remind members of this committee that only the Conservative Party of Canada is willing to open up our books. We've stated that quite clearly. We'll gladly do it, and we can start the examination today. We can start getting a witness list, at least, compiled today if only the opposition members would say, all right, we have nothing to hide, we'll open up our own books as well. We could start this today. Why aren't we? Quite simply because the opposition doesn't want any examination of their own books. Mr.

Chair, as I stated, I do not believe, based on the information we have compiled, that the opposition parties did anything wrong in the practices they employed in the last election, because they too engaged in what is called the in-and-out advertising—advertising practice, I would suggest, but the opposition tend to call it a scheme. But they did exactly the same thing as we did. Is that illegal? No, it is not. Let me perhaps, for the record, try to put this into context and try to frame the so-called in-and-out scheme, and how it works, and also, Mr.

Chair, try to frame the argument that the opposition members are attempting to make. Basically, where the dispute is is that Elections Canada has contended that the Conservative Party of Canada overspent the cap that they have on national advertising. In other words, every party during a federal election has a cap on how much it can spend at the national level for advertising, whether it be radio, electronic, television, and that sort of thing.

Elections Canada has contended that the Conservative party got around this cap and exceeded this cap by getting local candidates and their local campaigns to run national ads.

(1120) They also contend that the national party paid for those ads in a practice known, again, as the in and out, where a local campaign would pay for an ad that they ran—which the opposition claims is national in scope—and then be later reimbursed by the national party for it. So it would have the net effect of running a national ad that wouldn't cost the local campaign anything. In fact, since they paid for the ad and were later reimbursed, they could claim their payment or their invoice as an election expense and actually get a return from it.

Chair, it may appear to many uninformed members of the general public that there's something wrong with that. How can you get reimbursed and still claim it as an expense? Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the way election laws are presented. Whether or not that's the correct method by which Elections Canada should conduct itself is a question for another day. But that is the current system that Elections Canada employed, and it was followed to the letter not only by the Conservative Party but by all other political parties. Mr. Chair, I would like to deal with those issues as best I can.

Wherein, again, the contention is that something was wrong, that the Conservatives did something wrong by overspending their national advertising cap.... In fact, one of the allegations is that local candidates should not be allowed to run national ads, that they should be allowed to run only ads that promote the local candidate, not the national party. Mr. Chair, let me just read, for the record, the following: In

summary, the records of Elections Canada indicate that the

interpretation it apparently applied in refusing to recognize the expenses for some of the regional media buys of Conservative Party candidates in the 2006 Election (due in particular to the so-called “national” content of the advertising) is expressly contrary to the

interpretations repeated many times by Elections Canada in its own published

interpretation material from at least 1988 through early 2007—when there was an abrupt change published without notice, over a year after the 2006 election. Let me just deal with that for a second. What this refers to is simply that up until and including the 2006 election, for a period of at least 18 years, Elections Canada in its own material stated that candidates could run advertising campaigns that promoted either their local candidacy or the national party. That was within the parameters and the rules set down by Elections Canada. Yet a year after the 2006 election, Elections Canada came out with

interpretations saying local candidates can promote only local candidates. In other words, they can't promote the national party. But that was a year after the 2006 election. So I would submit, and I would argue, Chair, that if Elections Canada is contending that the Conservative Party of Canada broke elections law, elections rules, by having local candidates promote a national party, they're absolutely wrong, because they changed the rules after the 2006 election. We were following the letter of the law in the 2006 election, as was each other nationally registered party. The rules were changed after the election, Mr. Chair. Secondly, Chair, Elections Canada

interpretation material also indicates, consistent with the act, that national parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns—and that's the second part of the allegation that the Conservatives did something wrong. They're saying that not only did they run a national ad, which therefore contravenes the national cap on advertising, but they received money from the national party to pay for the ad. So somehow that is wrong.

(1125) Again, Elections Canada's own interpretive material says that the national parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns. So in their own material, Chair, Elections Canada is contradicting itself, and that, frankly, is one of the main arguments we will be proposing when this case is heard in court. Here's an

interpretation of Elections Canada that absolutely contravenes its written material, its instructions to candidates and national parties, the rules that we are all to follow. How can that happen? How can Elections Canada, Chair, summarily and arbitrarily state that the Conservative Party was at fault when in fact by the letter of the elections law, we followed their instructions absolutely completely? Mr. Chair, that's a question I don't believe anyone at this committee can answer. That's why we have to take this to court and why we have engaged in the action we have.

Again, I go back to one of the arguments I raised earlier. If the opposition parties and the members of this committee were truly interested in finding out whether the Conservative Party broke elections laws, they should let this court case play out. There will be far more examination done in a federal court of law than could ever be done at the committee level—and we all know that here. The way the committee structure is set, there's only a limited amount of time that each member can question witnesses.

Yet in a court of law, the judge and the respective lawyers representing Elections Canada and the Conservative Party would be able to engage in a very fulsome argument. That's where the information will become evident, and that's where the information will be made public. So again, it's apparent to me and to any right-minded Canadian, I think, who's been following this that all the opposition members are trying to do in this committee is to create a scandal where none exists and to do anything within their power to embarrass the government, because, Mr.

Chair, we all know that in a minority government situation, there's a distinct possibility of an election being called at any moment. So what does an opposition party trailing in the polls need to do if they want to force an election, or if they want to engage in an election campaign? They need to have an issue. They need to have something that embarrasses the government. They need to be able to point to something during an election campaign and say, see, that's why you have to get rid of these guys.

Make no mistake, in the 2006 election—and prior to that in the 2004 election, but more so in the 2006 election—one of the main controversies and issues was the sponsorship scandal. That, of course, was a scandal unprecedented in Canadian political history, the largest political scandal in Canadian history, and it had a huge effect in the defeat of the then Liberal government.

So the Liberals quite obviously know the effect a scandal can have on an incumbent government, and they are trying, with the help of their opposition colleagues, to create a scandal where none exists, and they're pointing to and considering this to be a scandal. It's absolutely partisan, Chair, and it's the only reason that committee members are adamant in their view that Ms. Redman's motion be voted upon and be followed through. We, on the other hand, Chair, as I state for the record once again, have said that we have absolutely no problem with our books being examined.

If we did, we wouldn't be bringing forward a case. We wouldn't be bringing forward to the Federal Court the very thing the opposition members on this committee have been demanding and asking for.

(1130) We'll be completely examining—and allowing a Federal Court judge to examine, Chair—all of our books with respect to the 2006 election. And we've gone even further, at this level: we've stated that we'll go back to 2004, we'll go back to 2000, we'll go back as far as you want—as long as the other parties agree to do the same. Yet we have had consistent and repeated resistance from the opposition members to do so. Why? It's because this isn't about fairness; this is about partisan politics. That's all this is.

The opposition members do not want to have a media story saying that their books are being examined. They only want the media stories and the headlines to say, “Tory books examined—committee investigates”. Chair, not only is that not fair, but I think it is readily apparent to all observers that this shouldn't be the purpose of this committee. This committee, probably amongst all others, has, I believe, in past years had a well-deserved reputation for being relatively impartial. This committee generally deals with issues that affect all parties in Parliament.

It's the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; we talk about procedural matters, about matters that affect all parties. The legislation this committee deals with is mainly on the democratic reform side. Again, over the past years it has had a very well-deserved reputation as a committee that gets things done, that is impartial in its nature, that does good work to the benefit of all members and all parties. Yet, Chair, we have strayed a long way away from the noble intents and the noble work that this committee has done in years past.

We're down to a point now where opposition members are using this committee as a vehicle for their own partisan purposes, to try to embarrass the government, to try to create a scandal where none exists. And, Chair, that's something I'm certainly not prepared to let happen. If you truly want to have an examination of the Conservative advertising practices, if you want to talk about the in-and-out advertising scheme, let's do so. But let's do so by examining all books. In fact, Chair, I would even go further.

If the in-and-out advertising practice that has been employed by all political parties is something this committee feels to be inappropriate—and frankly, Chair, I would suggest there may be a very good argument to be made there—then let's deal with that. We have all followed the same set of rules, and if we think that practice should stop, let's investigate the matter. Let's talk about that issue. I'm not suggesting we make any fundamental changes to the Elections Act or to the practices of advertising, but if you want an examination, let's do that; then we can fully discuss that issue.

We can examine whether other parties have followed the same practice, which they have, and whether or not it's appropriate. But let's not go down into the political gutter, as the opposition members are attempting to do, and say let's just look at one party. You know, Chair, I'm looking forward to the court case that is going to be heard in the next few months, because it will give us clear opportunity to tell all members of this House and all members of the Canadian public exactly how we conducted our advertising practices in the 2006 election.

We will be able to argue—and effectively argue—how we followed to the letter electoral law. Part of that argument, Chair, will be comparison between what we have done and what the other parties have done. I think there's a pretty logical case to be made, if we can demonstrate, if we can completely illustrate, that the practices we followed absolutely mirrored the practices of an opposition party. And if the opposition party was not charged with any offence, then how could we be?

If the opposition party was not guilty of any election infractions, and we did exactly the same thing, then how could we be found guilty of any election infractions? It doesn't make any sense.

(1135) That's the situation that we now find ourselves in with Elections Canada. That is why we have brought forward a legal challenge to the

interpretations of Elections Canada. That is why we are fully prepared to have this whole issue investigated in Federal Court.

Interpretation guidelines contained in Elections Canada candidate handbooks, dating back to 1988, are consistent over time on the issue of candidate advertising, until a sudden drastic change in 2007, fully a year after the 2006 election. Until this drastic change, the guidelines were clear that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate specifically and/or the national party. That again goes back to Elections Canada and their

interpretation of our advertising. One of their criticisms, one of their allegations, is that local candidates ran national ads, and that the national party advertising cap was thereby exceeded. They say, they contend, that this is against the law. Mr. Chairman, in their own guidelines they say that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate or the national party. So how can it be that in their own guidelines they allow this practice to happen, yet they charge that the Conservatives, by following this practice, somehow violated elections law? It doesn't make sense.

And everyone around here knows it. We've all been candidates; that's how we got to this place. It is up to the candidate to determine the most effective use of advertising for getting elected. There's a fairly common rule of thumb in politics that 95% of the success or failure of a local candidate is determined by the success or failure of their national party. In other words, the majority of people, the majority of voters, make their decisions based on the national campaign. Certainly the local candidate has some effect.

The longer the time in office, the greater the power of incumbency and the stronger the influence of the local candidate. Generally speaking, though, voters vote for the party. If they think, as voters did in 2006 with the Liberals, that a party is no longer worthy to govern, they have a right, in effect, to fire them. And in 2006, that is what the voters did. When I was first elected in 2004, I was elected more because the voters in my riding wanted the Conservative Party to represent them than because they wanted to be represented by me as an individual. Primarily, that's why I got elected.

That's why the guidelines that Elections Canada has always followed said that local candidates can determine whether they want to run an ad promoting their own candidacy or promoting the national party. In 2004, when I was first elected, the majority of my advertising promoted the national party, because I felt that this was my best chance of getting elected. Now, there are some rules that go along with that, and we all know them. We can run a national ad, but we have to identify our own candidacy somewhere in the ad.

If it's a print ad, you have to have the name of the candidate and the official agent and authorizations. You need the same thing if you run electronic ads, whether on radio or television. But as long as you do this, it is considered eligible election expenses for the local candidate.

(1140) Yet all of a sudden we have this ruling from Elections Canada that because our candidates followed that very basic rule, somehow we were wrong; we, the Conservative Party candidates, erred, and violated somehow Elections Canada law. The net effect was that the ads we ran that might have been national in context and in scope actually should have been paid for and used as national ads, and that in effect exceeded the national advertising cap. Chair, I would argue to anyone that, as a candidate, it is my sole right to determine what advertising is going to benefit me the most.

If they are national ads that benefit me and contribute to my election as a candidate, then I should have the absolute right to run those ads, as long as I authorize them and as long as people know that I was the candidate responsible for paying for those ads. That's the authorization, declaration, and disclosure that I talked about just a few moments ago. We've all done that. I would suggest that members of this committee, if they were to go back in their political careers, would find that on many occasions they have done exactly the same thing.

They have run ads that promoted the national party more than their local candidacy. That was their decision— The Chair : Excuse me, Mr. Lukiwski. I don't mean to interrupt, but it's 11:45. If in fact we indeed are going to go over our time, it's probably a good idea to order lunch now, because it will take some time to get here. I certainly don't want to waste taxpayers' dollars, but I need to know—and just through head-nodding, I don't want to get into a discussion—whether or not we should order lunch. Order lunch, yes or no?

(1145) Mr. Michel Guimond : We don't know how long Mr. Lukiwski will take. The Chair : All right, that's fine. Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Well, if it helps the discussion—I hate to see any of my colleagues go hungry—I plan to go for a considerable length of time, for as long as you would allow me. So I think we should, yes. The Chair : Thank you very much, colleagues. You have the floor. My apologies. Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Chair, as I mentioned, that's basically the fundamental difference that we have with Elections Canada. They are making an

interpretation that I can absolutely not understand. We have carefully examined all election rules with respect to advertising. We believe we have complied fully with those rules, and yet we can't seem to find any accommodation within Elections Canada. I can't for the life of me understand why they have made this ruling. I know why the opposition is onside with Elections Canada; as I said before, they're just trying to make a political case out of this. But I can't understand why the ruling came down from Elections Canada. Mr.

Chair, I've said before on many occasions that other parties and other candidates have followed exactly the same practice. Let me give one of many examples that I plan to enter into the record. We'll start with my friends in the New Democratic Party. We have again provided evidence, which will be brought forward in the Federal Court, that other parties and other candidates have engaged in the same advertising practices we have. I'll start by giving you an example of an NDP member who engaged in this and who is in fact the House leader of the NDP, Ms. Libby Davies.

We have provided evidence in our affidavit that there is an invoice from the national office of the NDP to the official agent for Ms. Davies' campaign for “election period radio advertising paid by the federal party in the amount of $2,612”. This invoice was paid to the NDP national office by Ms. Davies' local campaign by cheque dated May 31, 2006, the same day as Ms. Davies paid over $2,000 for advertising invoiced by the national NDP office. In other words, if you're following along, it would be an eligible election expense: the NDP invoiced $2,000 to Ms. Davies, and she paid the bill.

The same day, the local campaign received a transfer of funds from the NDP national office for $2,600; in other words, virtually the same amount as the invoice—hence the in-and-out. The national campaign office of the NDP invoiced Ms. Davies for $2,600, she paid it, and the same day the national office transferred $2,600 right back to Ms. Davies: the in-and-out scheme.

The in-and-out nature of this transaction, Chair, is specifically set out in an e-mail to the campaign from the NDP national office, which states in part: “The good news is that the federal party will transfer $2,600 to the federal riding association as we agreed to pay for the ads.” Now, “we agreed to pay for the ads”; that is coming from the national office of the New Democratic Party of Canada. What they did was run a national ad, and they paid for it, but there was an exchange of transfers and invoices. This practice that Ms.

Davies followed is exactly the practice we used in many of our campaigns—not all, but many of them—and that practice is what Elections Canada says is in violation of the Elections Act, because it was clearly a national ad. If you take all of these ads in question and all the amounts, they exceeded the national cap. Chair, the Elections Canada people didn't charge Ms. Davies. As I said before, if Ms. Davies was following exactly the same practice as we were, how can we be charged with a violation of the Elections Act and Ms. Davies not be, particularly when the practice of both Ms.

Davies and the Conservative Party is completely consistent with the regulations set down by Elections Canada? They say this is okay.

(1150) Now, I know that we see in this case, Chair, Monsieur Godin , the member of the New Democratic Party, shaking his head that, no, it's not exactly the same. It is exactly the same, and this will be proven in court. And I know, Chair, I was referring through you to Mr. Godin. It is exactly the same practice.

Again, I am at a bit of a loss to try to understand, from Elections Canada's perspective, how it can be that, if two candidates did in effect exactly the same thing, followed exactly the same procedures in terms of advertising, only one of those candidates or one of those parties was found to be in violation of elections law. It can't be. They're both in violation or neither is in violation. Yet that's not the situation we have before us. That, Chair, is why we have caused this legal action to go forward, because we fundamentally disagree with the

interpretation of Elections Canada. Chair, I think back to the last meeting, when there was obviously a lot of discussion, to be kind, a lot of commotion—a lot of interruptions, to be more accurate—from the opposition when I was trying to present my case. Yet I recall, Chair, that it was Monsieur Proulx who made a comment—of course it was not through you, but it was just an interruption—a comment I heard quite clearly, when I was trying to make a case, as I am today, that we have done nothing wrong. He said, well, Elections Canada doesn't think so, and that is why we should have this investigation.

He said, Elections Canada doesn't think so, and therefore Elections Canada should be the sole arbiter. Chair, I can only interpret by that—I'm going to make a bit of an extreme case, but consequentially it makes a lot of sense—that if Monsieur Proulx takes that approach, then I suppose Monsieur Proulx is saying we have no need for a judiciary, because if one is to take as gospel an allegation or a charge from an organization, why do we need the court system? If police were to charge an individual, then apparently, according to Monsieur Proulx, we could just take that as the gospel truth.

We don't have to challenge that. There's no need for a court system to defend anybody, because according to Monsieur Proulx, if someone makes a charge, you've got to accept it. We do not. We believe that Elections Canada erred, and erred seriously, in its own

interpretation of the act and in its own

interpretation of our advertising practices. We look forward, Chair, to being able to prove that in court, to being able to demonstrate to all concerned that the Conservative Party of Canada did absolutely nothing wrong. I have given you but one example of a practice used by a member of the opposition, and it is exactly that practice and the same methodology that was followed by many of our candidates. As I said just a few moments earlier, Chair, perhaps this issue, this ability of national parties and local campaigns to transfer moneys back and forth, is an issue we should be discussing.

Say someone brought that forward and said, “Something doesn't seem right to me. How can you have it that a local candidate gets reimbursed but still is able to claim election expenses? That may not be right.” Well, hey, it's a legitimate argument and a legitimate point. Let's discuss that, because all parties have followed that same practice, and for good reason, Chair—I must reiterate, for good reason—because it's allowed. It is not against the law. There's absolutely nothing wrong, according to the existing Elections Canada laws, that would prevent a candidate or a national party from engaging in that practice.

Yet members opposite in this committee certainly don't see fit to investigate whether or not that practice should be continued or not.

(1155) Again, as I mentioned earlier, I would suggest that this committee has done good work before. Perhaps that's an issue that this committee should investigate, and we should advise Elections Canada of our findings. Perhaps we could call forward the head of Elections Canada and his staff to discuss this issue, to see whether or not it was appropriate to find out the genesis of that practice—whether or not it should be continued, whether or not it was a legitimate practice, whether or not it perhaps abused taxpayers' dollars.

All of those questions are questions that perhaps we could be asking, but instead, Chair, what we have here is an attempt by the opposition to say, “Because the Conservatives engaged in the same elections and advertising practices as we have, only they should be singled out for scrutiny.” And I say that's patently unfair. I also contend, and I suggest to you, Chair, that the opposition members fully know, although they would never admit this publicly and certainly not in front of members of the media, that this is nothing more than a red herring.

They are engaging in a partisan tack, a thinly concealed, thinly disguised smear campaign to try to embarrass the government. Well, it won't work, Chair. It will not work. We have done absolutely nothing that contravenes election law. Let's see if we can get another example. Let's turn our attention, if we can just for a moment, to a candidate from the Liberal Party of Canada. I have many, but I'll start with this one: the case of Pablo Rodriguez, member of Parliament. An hon. member: Doesn't he work for the media? Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Well, I know Mr.

Rodriguez has had his name in the media for a while, in the last month or so, but this is another example of where he might get a little media attention. I know, Chair, we have Monsieur Godin back talking to members of our media who are covering the proceedings, but I would suggest that...and I see my friend Mr. Naumetz is back there paying rapt attention to this, so I suggest he may want to use this example as well. Again, it's an example of how the Liberal Party and one of their candidates engaged in this in-and-out scheme. To start off, Mr.

Rodriguez receives a fully discounted invoice for services rendered from the electoral district association. In other words, his own EDA, his own riding association, invoices Pablo for $13,322.68 on April 27, 2004. He then claims that as a legitimate election expense. So his EDA invoices him just over thirteen grand and he claims it as an election expense. That occurred on April 27, 2004. On May 4, the same EDA that invoiced him for $13,322.68 receives a cheque for the same amount from the Liberal Party of Canada. Then the electoral district association transfers the same amount of money back to Mr. Rodriguez.

So there is a three-way transfer here. The EDA invoices Pablo for thirteen grand. He pays it. The national party reimburses the EDA for the thirteen grand, so they're not out any money, and the EDA transfers that to Pablo. At the end, then, he was able to claim $13,000 and change as an election expense. It didn't cost him anything, and yet he got about a 60% rebate from Elections Canada.

(1200) Now, Chair, that's the in-and-out scheme that the Liberals so adamantly state is the problem with the Conservative Party of Canada. They're contending that we followed that in-and-out transfer versus receipt of invoice situation and are at fault, that somehow we've broken electoral law. Well, Mr. Chair, again I point out that Mr. Rodriguez wasn't charged by Elections Canada for violating any electoral laws or rules, so how can it be that if Mr. Rodriguez did exactly the same thing as some of our candidates, only one of those two candidates was charged? There's a very serious disconnect there.

You cannot have a situation in which, if two people engage in the same act, only one is deemed to be in violation of law. They're either both innocent or they're both guilty. Those are the inconsistencies, the great inconsistencies that we see with the ruling from Elections Canada. Chair, these examples and many others are going to be fully discussed and examined in the court case. That's why we brought this court case forward. Some of our candidates, Chair, have yet to receive their election returns. They're being held up because of these charges and this pending court case.

We want this dealt with expeditiously. We want these charges dealt with as quickly as we possibly can. Chair, if members of this committee want to discuss this, examine all of the registered parties' methods of advertising during a national campaign, we would welcome that; hence, my motion.

Then, if this committee were truly interested, sincerely interested, in getting to the truth, of getting to the bottom of this matter, I am sure that after a careful examination this committee would conclude that no party violated the Elections Act, and perhaps we could file a report to that extent, both with Elections Canada and with Parliament. Yet, Mr. Chair, members of the opposition don't seem too inclined to follow that suggestion of mine. They don't want, for a minute, a fulsome examination of everyone's election books, and it's quite obvious why. I've given you but two examples of many.

We'll have further examples later in my presentation this afternoon from the Bloc, more examples from the NDP, more examples from the Liberals, as to how they engaged in the so-called in-and-out scheme and how they were not charged, neither the individual candidates nor the federal parties, with any violation of the Elections Act by Elections Canada. Chair, I'm doing what I can right here to accommodate Ms. Redman and her motion. Ms. Redman's motion—supported, I might add, by all opposition members—stated that they wanted to have an investigation of the Conservative Party.

They wanted to investigate this in-and-out scheme. In fact, I believe in the motion itself.... Yes, it says “...investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election, in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for illegitimate election campaign expenses”. Again, the political rhetoric spun by Ms. Redman is suggesting that this in-and-out procedure is somehow restricted to only the Conservative Party of Canada, when clearly it is not.

I have given two examples from two different political parties that have engaged in exactly the same practice, Chair, yet they were not charged with any violation whatsoever of electoral rules.

(1205) I suggest, Chair, that not only is this patently unfair, but there was an egregious lack of judgment on behalf of the officials of Elections Canada when they first determined to level these charges at the Conservative Party of Canada, because we did nothing wrong. I will repeat and repeat again the fact that we are not suggesting for a moment that any member opposite, or any party that the members opposite represent, did anything wrong. Everyone followed the rules completely.

That's why I'm at a complete loss, Chair, to understand why opposition members of this committee do not simply agree to examine with us the election expenses of all political parties. They've stated many times in the past, and I'm sure they will say it in the future, that they didn't violate any elections act. We agree. At least we have agreement on that. Our point is, Chair, that the way to truly determine if the Conservative Party has violated any act within Elections Canada is simply to do a side-by-side comparison. We'll gladly open our books.

We'll take the expenses in question from our various candidates and put them side by side with the election returns of other candidates, whether they be candidates from the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, or the Bloc Québécois. That's how you get to the bottom of this. That's how you do a comparison and determine whether or not a party or a candidate broke the law or perhaps violated the spirit, if not the literal

interpretation, of the Elections Act. That's how you come to that determination, Chair. You do so because the investigation takes place in a fulsome and open and transparent process. That's not what we have here with the motion opposite. The motion, as presented by Ms. Redman and supported by all members of the opposition, only wants to deal with the election spending practices of the Conservative Party. That's not the way to get to the bottom of it, Chair. That is absolutely not the way to get to the bottom of that.

So again I would suggest, Chair, what we are facing here is nothing more than a partisan attempt on behalf of the opposition to try to create a scandal where none exists. But we have many more examples. Chair, we'll go back now to the New Democratic Party, and I think I'll concentrate for the moment on election claims of sitting members of Parliament, because I think most Canadians are more familiar with them. I could invoke names of candidates who ran for the NDP or the Liberals or the Bloc, but since they weren't successful in their elections, I won't use them as examples.

Since we have many MPs who have been elected for several years and are familiar to Canadians, I think we might be able to get the attention of Canadians focused more easily if they can relate an example of election spending to an individual they know.

(1210) Let's use the example of Mr. Peter Stoffer of the NDP. The NDP invoiced Mr. Stoffer for $6,118.02, dated December 29, 2005. Then a cheque from the NDP back to Mr. Stoffer for $6,000 was deposited on January 18, 20 days later. The cheque from the candidate to the NDP to pay invoices was dated January 17 and cashed on February 1. That's exhibit 57 in our affidavit to the Federal Court, again an example of this in-and-out transfer scheme, in which a candidate claims as an election expense an invoice for which he is repaid.

He's invoiced for $6,000, claims it as an expense, and all of a sudden he's reimbursed the same amount of money from the federal party. The contention of Elections Canada is that if the net effect is that the federal party paid for the ad, that should be included in their cap. Yet, nowhere in the submission by Elections Canada does it make mention of Mr. Stoffer's case; nor did it make mention of Libby Davies' case; nor did it make mention of the federal NDP exceeding their cap; nor did it make mention of the Liberal Party of Canada exceeding their cap when they engaged in exactly the same practices as we did.

Again, I cannot understand for the life of me how, if two parties engage in the same practice, only one party could be deemed to be in violation. You're either both in violation or you're both not. You can't have one without the other. Yet that is what we have seen from Elections Canada. Again, that is why it is my fervent wish and the wish of our party to have this case heard as quickly as possible. I don't know when it's going to be heard. Chair, obviously there are many, many cases before the courts. If I had my way, I would certainly have this case dealt with today. I would have the proceedings start today.

Unfortunately, people other than me make those decisions as to when individual cases will be held. Chair, one of the reasons I brought our affidavit to this committee is to outline not only to members of this committee—who I'm sure will ignore it, because again, they're not interested in getting to the truth—but to the members of the media the inconsistent behaviour of Elections Canada in this case, because it doesn't make sense.

How can you take two examples, in a side-by-side comparison of two candidates—the amounts may vary, but the methodology is absolutely the same—and you have one candidate deemed to be in violation of elections law and another candidate who followed exactly the same practices deemed to be not in violation? How can that happen? In my view, it can't. I guess it did. I guess charges were laid, but it doesn't mean they were right. That's why we are engaging in a legal pursuit to overturn the ruling of Elections Canada. That's what we should be doing.

I would humbly suggest, Chair, that if any of the other parties were in this situation, they would do exactly the same thing, as they should, to protect not only their own candidates but their own integrity and reputation, and to prove in a court of law that there was no violation of any sort with respect to our practices in the 2006 election. It is our legal right, and frankly, I believe it's our obligation to bring this case forward. I honestly don't know where the problem lies in Elections Canada, why they had only singled out the Conservative Party.

I'm not going to try to presuppose that; I'm only saying I am confused. I cannot understand why, when it is completely evident that other candidates in other parties engaged in similar practices, only one political party was singled out.

(1215) I will let others perhaps try to determine the answer to that question, but all I can say is that I am absolutely confused as to their

interpretation. I think it was wrong on a number of different levels. It was wrong because they misinterpreted their own rules, and then they failed to see the inconsistency of their ruling with respect to the actions and practices of other parties. Let me just go back to one of my very earliest comments here and read again the

interpretation guidelines contained in the Elections Canada candidate handbooks, that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate specifically, or it could also promote the national party. Secondly, let me again read into the record something from Elections Canada, where Elections Canada

interpretation material also indicates, consistent with the act, that “national parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns”. Okay? National parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns, and the local campaign can determine whether it wants to run a local or national ad. That's what has happened in all these examples. The national campaign transferred funds to a local campaign, and in Elections Canada's guidelines it says that's okay, you can do that.

Then the local campaign ran a national ad with their own candidate's tag line at the bottom, and that's okay, according to Elections Canada guidelines. We did nothing wrong, the NDP did nothing wrong, the Bloc Québécois did nothing wrong, the Liberal Party did nothing wrong, and it states so in Elections Canada guidelines. Yet we have been somehow singled out, and the suggestion is that we broke the law somehow. I'm not a judge and I won't be hearing this case, but for the life of me, I would defy anybody at this committee to explain how this

interpretation is valid. It simply is not. That's why I brought forward a motion, because I don't want, and frankly I know our party doesn't want, this charge hanging over our heads.

I want it dealt with expeditiously, and I would love to have an examination, a full study by this committee, if only they would do what we are requesting of them to do and to allow their own books to be examined at the same time as ours, to allow us to fully illustrate, as I have been attempting to do here, why the practices that we engaged in were similar and in fact, in some cases, were the exact practices of candidates from opposition parties.

If we were allowed to do that, if we were allowed to simply open up our books and the books of the opposition, put them beside each other, and compare the transactions of individual candidates and individual parties, we would quite clearly see, frankly, in a matter of moments, that we have engaged in similar common practices. Then the question becomes, quite simply, if we're all doing things in a similar fashion, if we're all engaging in the same practices, we all have to be in the same boat when it comes to the

interpretation from Elections Canada. In other words, if Elections Canada ruled that those practices were in violation of electoral law—

(1220) The Chair : Excuse me, Mr. Lukiwski, I see that the food is here. Unless anybody has a significant objection, we'll suspend for a few minutes to get the food set up.

(1230) The Chair : Colleagues, let's resume our meeting where we left off. I know there are still some folks who need to get some sustenance. Please feel free to do that. I invite folks around the room as well to partake. However, if you could just be as quiet as you possibly can, that would be much appreciated. Mr. Lukiwski, please.

(1235) The Chair : Point of order, please. Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : I don't want to have 10 points of order on this, but it is your responsibility as chair to make sure he doesn't tell the story four times. He's up to three times already with the same story. We've heard about it. I think during filibustering he has to change the subject and continue on. It's your responsibility. The Chair : Thank you. Mr.

Tom Lukiwski : Chair, I'm not sure, quite frankly, in debate, whether there are any hard and fast rules I've ever seen in Marleau and Montpetit that suggest that one can't repeat a particular case in point for emphasis and to stress its importance. That's what I've been doing, because frankly, Chair, I think we've seen a lot of the members being very inattentive, and I just want to make sure they're fully apprised and fully aware of the importance of my argument.

(1240) The Chair : We have a point of order again. We'll go to Mr. Reid, please. Order, please. Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) : I appreciate Monsieur Godin 's concerns here. I actually think Mr. Lukiwski's response is a good one. It's very difficult when there is background noise and interruptions of the sort we have just heard. I just wanted to make a point here, and I do want to make a distinction that giving multiple examples by way of proving a point is different from saying the same thing over and over again in constant repetition. And all members should be fine with that.

The Chair : Okay, the chair is quite aware, and I don't want to get into a debate on a point of order. The chair allows the widest possible debate to take place. Mr. Lukiwski, you have the floor. Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Thank you again, Chair.

The only point I was trying to make—and I will re-emphasize this, perhaps several times, for the benefit of Monsieur Godin and others, the media included—is that it is very important to understand that Elections Canada's own guidelines specifically state that a candidate can run a local or national ad if they wish, and that a national campaign, a national office or federal party, can transfer funds unrestrictedly to a local candidate. That's the argument they're posing to try to find that the Conservative Party of Canada has been in violation of the act.

Well, Chair, I again point out that it absolutely makes no sense. Their own guidelines state this is acceptable practice. On the one hand, they're saying this is acceptable practice in all of their written material, and yet in their findings they're saying that because we follow these very practices, somehow we're in violation of the act. Please explain that to me. How can that be? Well, it can't be. Chair, it is true that after the 2006 election, these guidelines were changed—but that was after the fact. One cannot be found to be in violation of a guideline that wasn't in existence.

I just think, Chair, quite simply, that the findings of Elections Canada are wrong and that they honestly erred in their

interpretation of these rules. I do not want to suggest for one moment there was anything but an honest mistake made by Elections Canada. I think that Elections Canada over the years has done an exemplary job in conducting elections in this country. We have had CEOs of Elections Canada before this committee on several occasions.

And while we've had differences of opinion from time to time, and sometimes we might even characterize these as disputes, I don't believe there's a member of this committee—certainly not me—who's ever, ever suggested for a moment that the integrity and the honesty of Elections Canada has been questioned. That's not the case. I'm very proud of the work Elections Canada has done over the years and, frankly, proud of the fact that representatives from our country, from Elections Canada, have been instrumental on many occasions in assisting other jurisdictions throughout the world in conducting their elections.

I think our electoral process is a model throughout the world, one that is honest and above reproach, but that doesn't stop the fact, Mr. Chair, that from time to time, mistakes can be made. I honestly and sincerely believe that in this case a mistake has been made. I've given a number of examples and will continue to do so underscoring my contention that a mistake has been made. Chair, when the court case that we have initiated is heard, I have no doubt that the findings at the end of the day will reflect the position we have taken.

That, quite simply, is that we have done nothing wrong; we have followed the guidelines proposed by Elections Canada to the letter. In fact, Chair, I might also say that I have yet to hear any member from the opposition give a definitive example of how we have violated the electoral law; I've yet to hear that. I've heard a lot of partisan rhetoric saying that clearly the in-and-out game of the Conservatives has violated elections law, and this is a scandal, but they have yet to give one concrete example of how we've done so.

(1245) On the other hand, Chair, I have presented, and will continue to present over the course of the next few hours or the next few days, example upon example of how opposition members have followed the same practices as put down in the guidelines from Elections Canada and have done so with impunity. They were not found to be in violation of the act. We will also demonstrate, Chair, that if in fact that is true, and those practices were similar to ours, then how can one be found in violation and one cannot? It doesn't make any sense.

Chair, it is quite obvious that what's happening here is that we have an attempt by the opposition to smear the reputation of the Conservative Party. I also want to point out the obvious: if the opposition members were truly interested in finding out whether the Conservative Party or any of our candidates had violated any

section of the Elections Act, they would allow us to present our arguments, arguments similar to the ones we're making in Federal Court, that we engaged in practices similar to those of the opposition. Yet they're refusing to do so. They refuse to allow us to do a side-by-side comparison of their books.

They're doing that for only one reason, because they know, as we know, that if we were able to do this side-by-side comparison, it would without question demonstrate that we were either all in violation of the Elections Act...but I think the obvious conclusion would be that none of the parties or candidates were in violation of the Elections Act. Chair, let me see if I can get to another example, because I think that is what most people can relate to. The example I'll use, because Madam Jennings is here, is from her own campaign.

Again, this is something that is fully within Elections Canada guidelines, but I think it shows how many candidates, many members of Parliament, some of whom are sitting around this table, engaged in the same practice. Ms. Jennings' campaign received an invoice from the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine electoral district association. In other words, her riding association invoiced Ms. Jennings' campaign for $16,132.93, dated May 29, 2004. Later that year, in November 2004, the electoral district received the same amount, $16,132.93, from the Liberal Party, and on the same date Ms.

Jennings received a $16,132.93 transfer from the association. In other words, the association billed Ms. Jennings' campaign for $16,000 and change. She claimed it as an election expense—got a rebate for it, I assume—and then the federal party paid the same amount to her riding association. Then the riding association transferred it back into Ms. Jennings' campaign. The net effect is that it cost her nothing, but she was able to claim $16,000 and change as a campaign expense and get a rebate. Is there anything wrong with that? Not according to Elections Canada rules and guidelines.

Subsequently, there was no finding that Ms. Jennings did anything wrong. The point is that our candidates acted in a similar fashion. They did exactly the same thing—received invoices, paid the invoices, claimed them as election expenses, then received money back in through a transfer, either directly from the federal party or federal party to riding association to candidate.

(1250) In any event, the national party ended up reimbursing the local candidate for the amount of the ad, and in all cases that is acceptable according to the guidelines set down by Elections Canada itself. Whether Ms. Jennings used the money to run an advertisement promoting her own candidacy or used the money to promote the national party by running a national ad is irrelevant, because both are legal; both are acceptable. Elections Canada itself says that. The point is, she was fully reimbursed from the national party for running ads in her campaign.

If they were national in scope, Elections Canada, if it wished to be consistent with its findings about the Conservative Party, should have then said that this $16,000 and change should be applied to the national Liberal Party of Canada's advertising campaign cap. Why wasn't it? I don't know. I can't answer that question. But I do know, Chair, that the process Ms. Jennings followed was the same process our candidates followed. So how can one be in violation and one not? It absolutely makes no sense. The issue we have is obviously one of great concern to us. We disagree with the findings of Elections Canada.

We will certainly be bringing forward these examples and many more arguments when our case is finally heard in Federal Court. I have also been trying to demonstrate for the record, for the sake of all committee members here, that the allegations made by the opposition certainly don't hold any water. But do you know something, Chair? They know that as well. They are not making these allegations in an attempt to find the truth or get to the bottom of this to find out whether or not the Conservative Party was in non-compliance.

They are only doing this, Chair, in an attempt to get some headlines, to try to find out whether or not they can successfully manipulate the media into running stories that would be unfavourable to the Conservatives. I suggest, Chair, that if that is their only motivation, with time, as with most of their allegations, it too will be disproved. I talked at our last committee meeting, before you had to suspend, about this being just the latest in a long series of examples of how opposition members are trying to create scandals where none exist. They have done so with the Schreiber-Mulroney thing.

For the days leading up to the first committee meeting at which Karlheinz Schreiber appeared, all of the questions regarding that event in question period were about the alleged—or imaginary, as it turns out—links between Schreiber, Mulroney, and Prime Minister Harper. They went to the great length of bringing in the government House leader to ask the $64,000 question in committee: “Did you, Mr. Schreiber, have any dealings with Prime Minister Harper?” Of course, they didn't know the answer that was forthcoming, which was absolutely not. He has never talked to the Prime Minister.

Since that time, if you've noticed, we've had precious few questions about any link between Schreiber and the Prime Minister's office or Prime Minister Harper. Why? It is because, again, there is no truth to it. That is an issue that is 15 years old, but the opposition tried at the outset to create a scandal where none exists.

(1255) They found out in short order that the best they can do now is to try to pull a guilt-by-association trip by saying okay, we know there are no links between Mr. Schreiber and the Prime Minister's office, but if we can somehow smear Mr.

Mulroney and find out if there was some sort of untoward dealing between Schreiber and Mulroney, maybe by association, even though they're two completely different political parties and this was an incident that happened 15 to 20 years ago, perhaps just by guilt by association we might be able to throw some mud against the wall and maybe it'll stick, and maybe somehow the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister will be negatively impacted by it. That's the best they can hope for. Well, it's the same thing here. This is another issue in which we have done nothing wrong.

We will be able to demonstrate that quite clearly in a court of law, but it doesn't stop the opposition from attempting to use anything and everything in their power for strictly partisan reasons to try to smear the reputation of this government. I would suggest, Chair, that one of the primary reasons they're doing that is that they see an election in the not-too-distant future. No one truly knows when the next election will be, but clearly it is apparent that the Liberal Party has all the cards on that issue, all of the power within their control to force an election.

I believe the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party have proven by their actions and their words quite clearly that they're willing to bring down this minority government at any time at their first opportunity. So it will come down to a decision made by the Liberal Party when they want the next election to be.

I believe, Chair, in the run-up to that anticipated election—and no one, at least no one on our side, really knows when that's going to be—the Liberals primarily are trying to create a scandal to try to smear the government in any way, shape, or form possible so that when they get into an election campaign, they've got an issue or two to point to, to say this is why you should defeat that government. Well, there's nothing on Schreiber and Mulroney.

There's absolutely nothing on this issue, and I think I've demonstrated enough examples, both through what is contained in the Elections Canada guidelines and in the actions and practices of opposition members, to show that there's nothing here. Yet I know that won't stop the Liberals in particular from trying to continue with the practice of smear and fear and innuendo and all the rest of the partisan tricks that political parties try from time to time. But it certainly doesn't mean that their allegations have any basis of fact or truth behind them, because they simply don't.

Now, Chair, let's see if we can find another example. Let's talk about what happened with Mr. Dion, the leader of the opposition. Again, the Liberals are the ones contending that there's this in-and-out scheme, which they keep referring to, which the Conservative Party engaged in, and which is somehow in violation of electoral law. Well, let's see what happened with Mr. Dion back in the 2004 election. Chair, I'll give you an example.

That's again one of the reasons we thought it would be appropriate in my motion to allow an examination of all parties' election expenses going back to the year 2000, so we could see that there was a continuing pattern by all political parties that engaged in the same process that has been deemed by the opposition to be the in-and-out scheme. In 2004, Chair, Mr. Dion's campaign received an invoice from his EDA, his riding association, dated April 21 in the amount of $12,200. He claimed this invoice as an eligible election expense.

The following day, on April 22, 2004—and this is indicated by the return from his riding association—it indicates that the association made a non-monetary transfer to the Liberal Party in the same amount, and two weeks later the Liberal Party transferred $12,200 back to the EDA. Chair, that means the federal party was financing this. There was an invoice for the money, it was claimed as an eligible election expense, but then the federal party backfilled it. They just repaid the amount.

(1300) Was there anything wrong with this? No, there sure wasn't. We don't suggest there was. But it appears when one of our candidates has done this, there is something wrong—at least that's the finding of Elections Canada. We suggest again that this inconsistency on behalf of Elections Canada is at fault here. It may be that during the course of the court case, which will hopefully begin sometime in the near future, everyone—courts and Elections Canada alike—will be able to admit that there was a mistake, that they did err in their judgment, and they'll reverse their findings.

I think it's going to be apparent as soon as we get into that court case that this will be the ultimate conclusion. What I have to point out, Chair, is that while that may be true, this committee could come to those very conclusions if they merely accepted the motion I have put forward, and that is to immediately begin examination of our books as well as their own. Yet there's simply no appetite on behalf of the members opposite to do such a thing, because it wouldn't be politically favourable for them to do that.

Not that they have anything to hide—perhaps they do, but certainly in these cases that I've illustrated they haven't, because they did nothing wrong. But it wouldn't be politically acceptable to have everyone have their books examined because the attention would be on every party, and that's not what the opposition wants. The opposition simply wants the attention drawn to the Conservative Party, for their own partisan reasons, so that they can try to convince Canadians that those big bad Conservatives have done something wrong again. Well, Chair, we have not done so.

If the opposition parties were truly convinced that we had violated the Elections Act in any way, shape, or form, and they had not, they should welcome my motion. They should absolutely welcome it, because then they could apparently demonstrate to Canadians that after a thorough examination of all of our books, it was only the Conservatives that were at fault here. You'd think they would welcome my motion, because then we could get this discussion and this examination going right away. But they haven't. Why haven't they? Because they know there's no substance behind their allegations.

If they are convinced that it was only our party and our candidates that violated the Elections Act, they should welcome my motion to begin the study right now. If they have done nothing wrong, they should welcome the examination of their own books and compare it to ours. If we were in violation, that would give them the opportunity to prove it, or at least to make a fairly compelling case. The ultimate arbitrator of this will be a Federal Court judge. But if they truly felt that we were in violation of the Elections Act, they would welcome my motion, and they have not.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out why they have not agreed to our motion, why they desperately want to avoid that side-by-side comparison. It's far easier to conduct a political smear campaign based on innuendo than on non-existent facts. That's what this has come down to. We have allegations and innuendo by members opposite, by the opposition parties, that cannot be supported by any facts.

(1305) On the other hand, during my presentation I am producing those facts, producing example upon example of practices used by opposition members that are exactly the same as our candidates in the last 2006 election, but they don't want to hear that. They don't want to hear that, and they certainly don't want to examine it. They don't want to bring it forward as an official committee item, because then the obvious conclusions would become apparent, not only to them but to Canadians, that all parties conducted themselves in a similar fashion and none of the parties were in violation of any Elections Canada acts.

It is far easier for members of the opposition to simply sit back and cast aspersions, make innuendoes and false allegations, and hope that the general public accepts them as fact. But that is simply not the case. Let's talk about a few more in-and-out transfers by other candidates. I had mentioned Ms. Davies earlier. I have given one example for the record, but there are more. In the 2006 election there was an invoice to Ms. Davies, who was the candidate, of course. This invoice came from the NDP, from central headquarters, for $7,003.64. It was dated January 13, 2006, 10 days before the election.

I checked them, and Ms. Davies, of course, claimed that as an election expense. A cheque in the same amount, for $7,003.64, from the national party to Ms. Davies was deposited by Ms. Davies on January 31, roughly a week after the election. So here we have another example of Ms. Davies claiming as an election expense an invoice from national headquarters for $7,000 and change, and then, after she claimed it, she was reimbursed for the same amount by national headquarters—the in and out. Was that wrong? Was that in violation?

Well, that's a tough one to answer right now, because apparently if a Conservative member did it, it's in violation; if an NDP member did it, it wasn't. That's the ruling, or at least that's the finding, of Elections Canada. An hon. member: Why don't we investigate them? Mr. Tom Lukiwski: I can't figure it out. That's why I'd like to have this committee do an examination. Why the inconsistency?

If we were to get all the parties to agree to my motion and bring the books forward, we'd have a pretty good discussion, and I think we'd have a very good opportunity to bring the Chief Electoral Officer in here and say, “It doesn't make any sense to us; explain the inconsistencies.” Here are some examples, one a Conservative and one an NDP; one a Conservative and one a Liberal; one a Conservative and one a Bloc candidate. They've all done the same thing. The amounts vary, but the process is exactly the same.

So please tell me, Monsieur Mayrand, why have you only ruled that the Conservative candidates were in violation of the act? Can you explain that to me? I would love to have that discussion. I think, frankly, we should be having that discussion. I think it should be incumbent upon this committee to enter and engage in that discussion. But the only reason we're not is because the members opposite choose not to. Why not? Again, it's simple; it wouldn't be to their political benefit to have such a discussion, because then they would be engaged in a process that would ultimately exonerate the Conservative Party.

They would be in a process that demonstrated quite clearly that they follow the same practices as the Conservative Party. That wouldn't give them any political smack. That wouldn't give them the opportunity to go onto the election hustings and point a finger at the Conservatives, and that's what this is all about. That's simply what this is all about.

(1310) We have a situation in which the opposition members are simply trying to muddy the waters, to throw mud against the wall—in this case, the Conservative wall—and hope that it sticks. But it won't. I respectfully submit to all members of this committee that it won't. We saw the same futile attempts at trying to muddy the waters in the Schreiber-Mulroney affair. That didn't work. They backed off. We see similar attempts here. But as much as anything, at least from the Liberals' perspective, it's an attempt to deflect attention from their own political shortcomings.

Let me explain what I mean: they are attempting to use this to smear the Conservative brand. Why would they want to deflect attention? What could be going on within the Liberal Party that they would want to deflect attention? Well, let's just examine, for a moment, their position or non-position on the continuation of the Afghanistan mission. The Liberals and Mr. Dion have consistently said that their position was clear, that we need an end to the combat mission by 2009, and that it's the Conservatives who haven't been clear on the matter.

Well, I'm going to laugh, because the only people in Canada who would suggest that we haven't been clear in our position are the Liberals. The Manley report is one that we broadly accepted. The Prime Minister had a news conference to discuss it. He has attempted, since that time, to convince other world leaders to commit additional troops and helicopters. So our position has been clear. The Liberals, of course, are caught in a divisive moment. Their caucus is divided on this, and they don't want to discuss it. So how do we get away from discussing the issue?

Well, why don't we go to committee, make a trumped-up charge, and try to deflect attention? That's what's happening here. At the end of the day, trumped-up charges are not going to carry the day, politically. At the end of the day, Canadians will not be fooled by this. Canadians will be looking at what's relevant to them, come the next election. Will this supposed in-and-out scheme be an issue? I think not. But it doesn't stop the opposition members in this committee from attempting to make it an issue.

I'm quite sure that when they have caucus meetings or strategy meetings, if in fact they have such things, they're thinking about things they can do either during question period or in committee to try to embarrass or take down the Conservatives. This has been one of them. It is no secret that we had all discussed this and agreed informally that legislation would be one of our priorities as a committee. No matter what else, legislation, or proposed legislation, would be given priority.

Yet when the subcommittee met and came back with their report, it said that the debate on the motion of Karen Redman would take priority over the other work of the committee. Now why would they want to do that? We all agreed, every party agreed, that legislation would take priority, as it should. Now we have Bill C-6 , which I know is very important to the Bloc Québécois. It deals with veiled voting.

Well, according to the subcommittee, of which the Bloc were active members—the Conservatives were not, by the way, so were without a voice on that committee—the Bloc agreed to this motion taking priority over Bill C-6 , veiled voting.

(1315) Now, I know the importance of that bill in the province of Quebec. I know the importance of that motion to the members of the Bloc Québécois at this committee. They've stated that many times. Yet once again partisan interests override anything else when it comes to the members opposite.

Even members of the Bloc, who so passionately argued in the debate on Bill C-6 , are now saying, “To heck with that, put that aside, because we might be able to create a scandal on this election advertising thing.” Well, what does that say, Chair, about the motivation behind the Bloc Québécois in this committee, who are willing to subjugate an important discussion on the examination of Bill C-6 , which they have identified as a priority of theirs, because of this motion of Ms. Redman's?

All that says to me is that the Bloc as well as the Liberals and the NDP are putting partisan interests before the interests of Canadians. They are putting the interests of their own party before the interests of Canadians, putting their own political interests ahead of the interests of Canadians. Mr. Chair, I don't agree with that. I know that members of my party don't agree with that. But in an attempt to solve this impasse, I've put forward a motion and said, “Look, you want to examine our books? You think something's there? Let's get at it. Let's start doing it.

The only thing is that we have to take a look at yours as well.” If you recall, I consistently have said that we do not believe any of the opposition parties have done anything wrong. They should have nothing to fear. We're even admitting that we believe they have nothing and did nothing wrong. I don't see why they shouldn't just say this: Great, let's accept the motion, because that way, at least, starting immediately, we can start looking at the inside of the Conservative Party books. We can take a look and see what they did during the election. If they did anything wrong, we'll be able to find it.

Since we did nothing wrong and we have nothing to hide, we can open up our books. You can have a full examination of our books. Of course, that will even further buttress our contention that the Conservatives were the only party that did anything wrong. By proving our innocence and proving the complicity of the Conservative Party with the so-called advertising scandal, we can make our case. But that wasn't the reaction of the opposition parties. That wasn't the reaction of the members opposite. An hon. member: What are they hiding? Mr. Tom Lukiwski: My colleague just asked what they're hiding.

I don't know what they're hiding. I don't know if they're hiding anything. I certainly don't think they did anything wrong. Based on the examples that I've already given—and I've many more to give—I don't think they did anything wrong. Elections Canada apparently agrees, because they didn't find any fault with the election returns of the parties who are represented by these members opposite. So why would they object to an examination of their books if that allowed them to finally examine ours? That's what they say they want.

Their allegations are that the Conservatives and only the Conservatives did something wrong. It would seem to me that the quickest way to prove that, if they can, is to get our books on the table, compare them to theirs, have everyone witness and examine all of the election practices—all of the reporting, all of the financial information, all of the disclosure—and then point to the world and say, “You see? We proved our case. We were right, they were wrong.”

(1320) You would think they would welcome that opportunity. You'd think they would rush to that opportunity. In fact, Chair, it seems odd to me that they didn't even raise that motion on their own volition. If they were truly convinced that we had somehow violated the Canada Elections Act and that they had not, why didn't they bring a motion forward to say that they would gladly open up their books for examination as long as they could see the Conservatives' books?

Why didn't they voluntarily say, “My motion says that we want to examine the books of the NDP, the books of the Bloc Québécois, and the books of the Liberal Party, but only if the Conservatives allow their books to be examined, as well”, and then force us to make a decision? If we said, “No, no, no, no”, then they would really have something. Then they would have this media attention, with the media saying the Conservatives were backing off and were refusing to allow their books to be examined. But it isn't that way. It's just the reverse.

We are the only party, Chair, that has voluntarily put forward a motion to examine our own books. The opposition members have not. I think any reasoned opinion that could be gained from this, Chair, is that the opposition doesn't really want an examination to find out the facts. They want an examination strictly for partisan purposes to try to spin the media to say “Committee Investigates Tories”. Those are the headlines they want. That's all they want.

Even if, at the end of the day—and I'm sure the results would reflect this—the committee said we couldn't find anything, that wouldn't be a story as big as the initial story, which they hope would say “Committee Investigates Tories”. That's what they're trying for here. Mr.

Chair, while it's clear to members of my party at this committee and to me that this is the motivation behind the opposition, I think it will become readily apparent to members of the general public as well, because, Chair, finally, for the record, we will have information that I have been providing in this testimony that proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that there has been nothing untoward happening in terms of our reporting relationship with Elections Canada.

I will continue to read into the record, Chair, example upon example upon example of how the other parties, whose members are sitting at this table, have engaged in the same in-and-out advertising schemes, which they allege the Conservatives entered into and which they also allege are not only inappropriate but are against elections law. I know they don't want to hear this, Chair, but we will enter into the record all these examples.

At the end of the day, Chair, whenever that day is, we will be able to bring out this record of testimony and submit that to the ultimate arbiter of who did what that was right and what maybe was wrong, and that is the Canadian public. I know that members opposite don't like it when I keep entering into the record examples of members of their own parties who did exactly the type of thing they contend we did and what they also contend was against the law. They don't like it when I point out that they did exactly the same thing as Conservative candidates.

We're going to continue to do that, Chair, because that's the only way I can determine that the truth will get out.

(1325) Well, let me back up a little. There's another way, and that is simply for the members of this committee to vote to accept this motion that I put forward, pure and simple. All they have to do is indicate that they are willing to accept this motion. As the saying goes in western Canada, Mr. Chairman, “pit or pat, or we'll get at it”. We'll get this examination going right away, I can guarantee that. But I don't see any willingness from the other side. I see continued stonewalling of truth and justice by the members opposite.

They continue to sit back and try to take what they consider to be the pious and moral high ground by saying, you know, we have to make sure we investigate those darn Tories, because if they were doing something wrong we'd better get to the bottom of it. Yet when we willingly offer to open up our books if they would do they same, they backtrack, refuse, or object. What does that tell Canadians? I know what it tells me.

And I think if any Canadian has the ability to read the testimony of this committee, Chair, they'll quickly come to the same conclusions I have, that there's absolutely no basis for the arguments or contentions of the members opposite—absolutely none. This is purely and simply a partisan attempt to smear the Conservatives, nothing more. If they say absolutely and without political motivation, we only want to get to the bottom of this, we only want the truth, why do they then not join with us in an attempt to do that very thing?

Why have they not agreed to let the court case proceed and let a court of law decide, ultimately, whether there were any violations? No, to them, that's not good enough; they want a kangaroo court established here so they can pick and choose the information they present. They don't want to let an impartial judge examine all of the relevant information and documentation, which would include, I might suggest, Chair, information and documentation and financial disclosures of the members opposite and their parties. They don't want that to happen.

They're not interested in that because, in all likelihood, the judge will agree with our assertions that under the Elections Canada guidelines of the day, there was no violation in the 2006 election, that there was absolutely nothing inappropriate or in contravention of election laws. That's what the opposition doesn't want to hear. God forbid, Chair, if we ever had this court case concluded prior to a general election and we were completely exonerated, as I believe we will be. How would the opposition take that?

It would be yet another example that Canadians could point to and say, geez, is that all these guys have? They keep trying to create scandals, but these keep blowing up in their face. They don't want that, Chair. It would be better for them politically if there were an unresolved issue about which they could allege there was a scandal than actually to have the truth come out.

If we were able to proceed expeditiously at this committee with an examination of all parties' books, I don't think we'd need more than, probably, a week or two of meetings before the truth would be determined, or a consensus reached by this committee, that there had been no inappropriate behaviour or illegal activity in the advertising practices of the Tories. They don't want that. They would rather sit back and just make unfounded allegations.

(1330) Well, Chair, I have to admit that's part of the game, part of politics, right? We all know that. We all admit that. I would suggest there's not a person here at this table who hasn't engaged in some form of political attack on their opponents based on allegations—in some form. We've seen examples, even in the national media, where there'd be stories the Globe and Mail would publish.

The opposition would automatically say, “Well, it was in the Globe ”, and then a week later, or sooner than that, the Globe had to retract itself, saying, “The allegations we printed weren't really true.” That didn't stop opposition members from grabbing onto that and trying to make a political point, or score some cheap political points. Everyone's done it. I understand that; I accept that. It's part of the political process. The point is we've heard only the talk of the opposition, saying, “No, that's not the case. We're holier than thou.

We really want this examination, this investigation, because we think there was something wrong.” Frankly, Chair, I would suggest that it comes close to violating the mandate of this committee to enter into such an investigation. That being said, nonetheless, that's open for debate and argument, I suppose. I would strongly suggest, Chair, that if we were to truly try to examine the advertising practices of all parties, that discussion wouldn't last very long. Do you know why? The perceived political advantage the opponents think they would get by examining only the Tory books would be gone. It would vanish.

There would be no political scandal there. There would be nothing to point to, to say, “You see? Only the Tories are being investigated here. Clearly that says something. They're the only ones who did anything wrong.” Well, that political tool would be gone from the tool case. They wouldn't be able to use that. So that's why they continue to resist my motion. Frankly, Chair, I don't think Canadians have much time for the antics of the opposition when it comes to this type of thing.

I sincerely hope this recorded testimony will filter its way down, and maybe not even filter but directly make its way down, unfiltered, to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I believe even a cursory examination of the testimony I've brought forward today will certainly prove and underscore my contention that this is nothing more than a political exercise brought forward by members of the opposition—nothing more; that's it. I know the opposition members don't want to hear that, so perhaps let's take a look at another example, with the NDP.

I'll now go to what we call exhibit 58, and this will be a candidate, not an elected member—this NDP candidate didn't get elected. The name is—and I hope I don't mispronounce this, but I probably will—Rodolphe Martin. It's the same sort of in-and-out transfer scheme. The NDP central party, national party, invoiced this candidate $8,333.36, dated September 29, 2005. About 20 days later there was a transfer from the NDP national campaign back to the candidate for $8,340. Well, this is a good one, because the candidate actually gained money on this one. He made $7 on the transfer.

The NDP actually transferred more money in than it invoiced him— An hon. member: That's their accounting skill. Mr. Tom Lukiwski: That's probably a reflection of the NDP's accounting skills. Nonetheless, this candidate was able to claim as a legitimate election expense over $8,300 and have that amount fully reimbursed by the national party fewer than 20 days later—in and out, in and out, the very transaction process the members opposite are saying is illegal, are saying is in violation.

(1335) How can it be? Elections Canada determined, in the case of this candidate, that clearly this candidate was not in violation because there was no fault; there were no findings that indicated there was a problem with this candidate's election return. I don't know this to be true, but I would suppose that this candidate has already received his full election reimbursement, while our candidates, who have done exactly the same type of thing, are still waiting for theirs.

Well, good for this candidate, but the argument I would advance to members of this committee, and I would certainly advance if I had an opportunity to intervene in the court case itself, is how can this candidate then be fault free and some of our candidates who engaged in the same process, the same protocol, were found to be at fault? You simply can't have it both ways. There is no consistency with the argument advanced by Elections Canada.

I would like to have the opportunity, and I would like to think members of this committee would like to have the opportunity, to ask those very basic questions to officials at Elections Canada. Maybe they have a very good reason for doing what they have done. I can't see it, but I would like to have the opportunity to ask those questions. Unfortunately, because of the obstructionist tactics of this committee—at least the opposition members of this committee—they're not allowing us to do so.

All they would have to do to allow that examination or cross-examination of Elections Canada officials, all that would have to happen for that examination to take place, is for members opposite of this committee to agree to the motion I presented. I'm sure we could have the head of Elections Canada and all his officials in here, at the latest, by next Tuesday. As you can quite clearly see, there are a lot of examples I have here that I'd love to question Monsieur Mayrand and his officials about, just to ask some very simple questions. How does this differentiate?

How do the actions of NDP candidate Martin differ from the actions of our candidates? Please tell me. Educate me. Help me to understand why you found fault with us and some of our candidates when you found absolutely no fault with candidates from other political parties. I don't know. I'd like to get the answers to that. I would like to think that members of this committee would have answers to that. Here's another one. I see Monsieur Godin is showing great interest in my testimony, so I want to continue along with some of the examples from the New Democratic Party. An hon. member: [ Inaudible—Editor ] Mr.

Tom Lukiwski: I will. It's a large document. I will attempt to be fair in my testimony and bring examples from all political parties, as many as I can. But only because my friend and colleague, Monsieur Godin, has shown such great interest in my testimony, for his benefit I'll bring forward an example of another New Democratic Party candidate to further underscore my contention that all parties have engaged in the same process, this in-and-out transfer. This is a candidate by the name of Barry Bell. The NDP—that is, the national party—invoiced candidate Bell for $2,944.91 in an invoice dated January 13, 2006.

Again, 10 days before the election, the national NDP central campaign office invoiced this candidate for close to $3,000—$2,900 and change. Then, Mr. Chair, the candidate, Mr. Bell, claimed it as an election expense. About three weeks later, on February 2, 2006, the candidate deposited the same amount, $2,944.91.

(1340) In and out: the candidate received an invoice from the national party, paid the invoice for advertising, and then was reimbursed fully and totally by the national party a few weeks later—in and out. How, Chair, are we to interpret that? How are we to possibly sit back and say we accept the findings of Elections Canada in which they say we violated some electoral rule by engaging in this in-and-out “scandal”. That's a term obviously coined only by members of the opposition Liberals, because there is no scandal here. We all know that. That is the question I would like to ask. I can't. Why can't I?

It is because committee members here won't allow it. Why won't they allow it? It is because they won't support my motion. My motion quite clearly states that we will bring forward all of our books for full examination. These individuals, members of this committee, could call as witnesses—and I'm sure they would—election officials, campaign officials, party officials, candidates, MPs.... I'm sure their list would be extensive. The only thing we ask, Chair, is that we be allowed to do the same thing.

We would bring forward as part of our witness list a request to examine executive directors and the financial officials who ran their respective campaigns in the 2006 election, and in fact in the 2004 election and the 2000 election. We would bring forward some of their candidates and some of their members of Parliament and would ask them questions as to whether they were fully briefed about how this process works. We've already heard testimony, which I've read into the record—an e-mail from the NDP national office to Ms.

Libby Davies and her campaign office stating, in effect, not to worry about paying the invoice they were sending her, because the federal party was going to fully reimburse it. That's in the public record. It's part of our testimony; it's part of our affidavit. It seems to me from that e-mail, that reference I just made, that perhaps the national campaign team of the NDP had to explain how this scheme worked; otherwise, why would they try to give an explanation in their e-mail? And if that's the case, Mr.

Chair; if the national campaign had to explain to a local candidate how this worked, it means that this scheme was the concoction of the national party. They were the ones who came up with this.

They were the ones who said, “We've examined election guidelines and we see where we can make this happen, legally and above board.” I mention that for the record, Chair, because part of the argument I have read, from allegations and testimony given by others, is that this was a duplicitous, an illegal scheme concocted by the national campaign team of the Conservative Party because they had to convince local candidates to enter into this scheme, had to tell local candidates what to do.

(1345) Chair, it's quite obvious that the NDP has some explaining of its own to do. Ms. Davies is an experienced parliamentarian. She's been through a number of election campaigns, yet it was still necessary, in the view of the NDP, to send her an e-mail telling her how this whole thing would work and assuring her that she really would not be out any money.

They e-mailed her and said not to worry, that the invoice amount she would be paying would be fully reimbursed by the national party: “You won't be out any money.” For any members opposite to allege that this was a protocol conceived by the national Conservative Party and forced upon local candidates is totally nonsensical, because we have evidence, which I've just produced, that says the NDP entered into the same thing. They had to explain to the local candidates how this whole thing worked. They had to e-mail them to say: “Here's the deal. We're going to invoice you. Pay the invoice, and we'll reimburse you.

The ads will be national ads but they'll be played locally, and just as long as you tag your candidate's name and your authorization at the bottom, it will be okay, because we've cleared this through Elections Canada.” Do you know something? They were right. Libby did nothing wrong. None of the examples I've given were violations of the Elections Act, none of them. They're completely within the rules. What we did and what our candidates did was exactly the same. There is nothing that we did wrong, that was outside the rules of election campaigning. In fact, Mr.

Chair, I want to relate to you, because it's certainly germane to this conversation— The Chair : We have a point of order from Ms. Redman. Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) : I would just like to confirm that it's the committee's intention to continue sitting and break for the length of time it takes to do the votes this evening; otherwise we'll continue to sit despite the fact that question period is coming up. The Chair : Yes, I was going to ask whether there would be a motion to adjourn.

I doubt very much that it would pass, so it is my intention, as we've done in the past, to suspend until after question period and for any division bells that require us to vote. So that's correct. Hon. Karen Redman : I hope Mr. Lukiwski will indulge me here. Perhaps, if you sought consensus in the committee, we'd be happy to sit through question period. The Chair : Okay. We'll seek that in a few minutes. I'll let Mr. Lukiwski continue and I'll ask again in just a couple of minutes. Mr. Lukiwski, please. Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Thank you.

As I was about to say, Chair, I'm going to give you a couple of examples that I believe are extremely germane to this conversation. In one of my previous lives I was general manager of the Saskatchewan Party. Prior to that, I was executive director of the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan. I say that because a lot of my duties in that capacity were to deal with candidates and to deal with election financing. Frankly, we set up a number of regional advertising buys for all of our candidates. This is quite common with respect to provincial as well as federal parties.

The point I'm making is that back in, in believe, the mid-1990s, in Saskatchewan we set out to review and make changes to the Saskatchewan Election Act. What we used as a guide was the federal Elections Act. In other words, in many areas, when we had some doubt as to what we should do to amend the act or update the act, we looked at the federal Elections Act for some guidance. Wherever possible, we actually mirrored the federal Elections Act. With respect to this regional advertising protocol, we looked at the federal act.

That's why I know it fairly well, because I was quite involved with this for several elections in Saskatchewan. We discovered that if candidates wanted to group together, to all throw in some money and collectively buy some advertising--we call it a regional advertising buy--we could gain greater efficiencies. There are volume discounts and that type of thing. As an example, in Regina the eleven candidates would each throw a couple of thousand dollars into a pool, and the $22,000 would be used to purchase a series of ads for the Regina candidates.

The ads would play on a rotational basis, and all of the candidates, wherever the ad that had their name and authorization on it played, would be able to then claim the full portion of their $2,000 as an election expense item. We cleared this through the Saskatchewan elections office. They assured us that this was absolutely acceptable. They also assured us that this was entirely consistent with the federal Elections Act. Of course, I had already known this, because I was on the committee that sort of redrafted many of the elements of the Saskatchewan Election Act. So we went forward.

And this is quite a common experience. Now, here's the point that I think is important. The ads that these eleven Regina Saskatchewan Party or Progressive Conservative candidates ran were not individual ads promoting their own candidacy. They were the provincial ads. They were the ads promoting the party, but they had the candidate's tag line on it saying, for instance, “In Regina Rosemont, vote for...”, and authorized by the candidate's official agent. So in no way, shape, or form did a candidate even attempt to have a local campaign ad promoting his or her candidacy.

We didn't even show the face of the candidate in this ad. This was a provincial ad. It was one that had been running the entire election campaign, and yet it was considered as an eligible local campaign expense. The same thing has occurred in the 2006 election. As I already read into the record, this is fully acceptable under Elections Canada guidelines. Earlier I gave you the exact wording, but I'll paraphrase it now, Mr. Chair. It states that a candidate can choose to run either a local or a national ad. That's fully up to the discretion and determination of the local candidate. That is allowed.

(1350) My understanding is that Elections Canada changed those guidelines about a year later, in 2007. Again I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that in any election in the future it must be a local ad only. You can't run a national ad if you're a local candidate. I may be wrong on that, but in any event, it's a moot point because the guidelines were changed in 2007, well after the 2006 election. The Chair : Thank you. I don't mean to interrupt, Mr. Lukiwski, but I will just for formalities. We have question period coming up in five minutes.

Some members have duties during question period, so I want to put this on the record. Is there any will of the committee to suspend until after question period, or does the committee wish to continue right now? Mr. Michel Guimond : I think Mr. Lukiwski is in a good mood. It's a very interesting story. We should continue. The Chair : Let's not give him much of a rest here. An hon. member: He's on a roll. The Chair: I totally agree with you. That's fine. The sense of the committee is that we will continue meeting through question period.

(1355) Mr. Scott Reid : Shouldn't we have a vote on this? The Chair : Okay, but here's the problem with that. The chair is not allowed to put a motion on the floor; only Mr. Lukiwski can. I'm just seeking the sense of the committee. I don't see that there's a motion forward. It was just a request. Mr. Scott Reid : So that means the default position is to just carry on. The Chair : Correct. Mr. Scott Reid : Okay. The Chair : Mr. Lukiwski, please. Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Thank you.

So my point, going back to the protocol that we followed provincially, is that it mirrored the protocol established federally, and as indicated in the guidelines set out by Elections Canada, this is totally appropriate. The guidelines have since been changed, apparently, to that one

section about national versus local advertising, but it was not changed until after the 2006 election. If perhaps—and I don't know this to be true, but hopefully we'll find this out in our court case, and we could have been able to find this out had this committee decided to accept my motion and we could then conduct our own investigation.

But perhaps Elections Canada simply erred and said, “Well, we have the guidelines in place now and we'll apply them to 2006.” If in fact that was the case, and I'm not suggesting it was, clearly there was a simple error, because the guidelines were quite clear in 2006 that candidates could determine if they wanted to use advertising that was local or national in content.

In the event that someone used a national ad—and I would suggest that the majority of ads purchased or entered into by all candidates of all political parties would be national in scope—the findings of Elections Canada apparently are that this money, the amount of money that a local candidate paid to run an ad promoting the national party, should be applied to the cap, the national advertising cap. Nowhere in Elections Canada's guidelines does it state that is the case.

In fact, just the opposite, the guidelines quite clearly state that a candidate could choose to run either a locally based ad, an ad promoting their own candidacy, or they could choose to run an ad that is national in context. So if they ran national ads and appropriately identified themselves and all their agents and followed the proper authorization requirements and protocol, then they could do so. That would be their choice—no conflict there; no untoward activity; certainly no violation, in my view, of the Elections Act.

Similarly, there's absolutely nothing that prevents the national party from paying for those ads, as long as they transferred it into the party. In other words, you can't just have the national ad be invoiced from the local candidate and have the national party pay for it directly. They have to transfer funds, after the invoice has been paid, to the local campaign, hence the in and out. I've spoken of this before.

Some people may suggest that's not appropriate, because at the end of the day you would have candidates who were able to receive a rebate for money that they really didn't...well, I guess they spent it, but they didn't really lose. In other words, they netted out revenue neutral, but they still got a nice healthy 60% rebate on that amount. It would be interesting to find out, in the case of my members opposite, what happened when the candidates received those rebates. Did they then make a donation in the exact amount back to the national party? In that case, the national party wouldn't be out any money.

An hon. member: That's an in and out and in and out. Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Yes. I don't know. I'd like to ask that question, but unfortunately, members of this committee, in the opposition ranks at least, don't want those questions to be asked. They don't want any examination of their books so that we can ask those questions of their officials.

I would love to be able to ask the executive director of the Liberal Party of Canada what happened with the rebates: “After all your candidates received these rebates for money that was transferred in from the national party to their campaigns, did they return that money to the national party or did they keep it?” Interesting question, Mr. Chair.

(1400) Unfortunately, thanks to the efforts of my colleagues across the table, it appears we're not going to be able to ask those questions—at least in committee. I am hopeful that when we go to the court case that will hear our arguments, those questions will be asked and we'll be able to get some definite answers, but I would like to be able to discuss that here. I'm quite sincere when I say I would love to have this discussion at this committee, and I just don't know why we are seeing and encountering such resistance from the members opposite. Mr.

Chair, it certainly would appear that we have some members who, for their own reasons, don't want these discussions to be held. Even though I have consistently stated that there appears to be nothing wrong—on the surface, at least—with the protocols and procedures that the members opposite followed during the 2006 election, there has to be a reason they are so resistant to my motion. There has to be a reason. We've already talked about the obvious ones, that they just don't want a discussion to determine the facts; they want headlines and media reports that the Conservative Party is under investigation.

Those are the obvious reasons. But could there be other reasons, Mr. Chair? Could there be things we don't yet know about the financial transactions of the members opposite, which they're fearful will be discovered? It's an obvious question that I'm sure many people have asked themselves already: what are they hiding? But I guess the only way they could distance themselves from those suggestions of impropriety would be to agree with my motion.

If, for example, a groundswell of opinion starts, suggesting that the opposition members have something to hide, that they are afraid of opening up their books because they have something to hide, one would think that if they had nothing to hide, they would welcome a suggestion to prove it at committee. Mr. Chair, I find it somewhat surprising that they haven't taken that approach, that we are the only party voluntarily suggesting we open our books because, clearly, we have nothing to hide. I think that's quite obvious.

Perhaps, through reflection and my continued arguments, the members will start to realize that it might be in their best political interests to accept my motion. It doesn't appear that way yet, Mr. Chair, but I know the members opposite, generally speaking, have some political acumen and can understand the politics of this. I'm sure that if public opinion started veering against them, taking the view that the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc were hiding something and didn't want their books examined, their position on this motion would change, and would change rapidly.

I'm still hoping, quite frankly, that it might occur, Mr. Chair. There is some precedent for it. We've seen, particularly with the Liberals, their opinion on many issues changes frequently, particularly Mr. Dion 's opinion on various issues. He'll say one thing one day and another day he'll change his mind. I'm hoping that will be the case here, that members will ultimately come to the realization that it would be in their best interests to have this full, complete examination of all books, of all parties' election practices.

(1405) I don't know if they'll ever fully come around to my way of thinking, but again, if I were in their position and I firmly believed we had nothing to hide but that my political opponent had something to hide, I'd say, “Hey, let's get it on. Let's agree to the motion.

Let's get the Conservatives and all their officials and all their books in front of this committee so we can have a complete and fulsome examination and discussion of the books, because it doesn't matter if they examine ours, we've done nothing wrong and we have nothing to hide.” So at the end of the day, if they truly believe we're the only ones who have contravened the Elections Act, they should be welcoming this motion. They should be embracing this motion. But I don't see that. I see nothing of the sort. I see continued resistance.

And all that's going to happen at the end of the day is that ultimately the courts will determine whether or not the Conservative Party of Canada and local Conservative Party candidates were in violation, whether or not there was any electoral wrongdoing. We clearly welcome that. One of the reasons we wanted to bring this court action forward is that a lot of our candidates were having their election returns withheld. We don't want that delay.

We want election returns to be repaid to the candidates so that it will go into their election campaign accounts, because we know we're going to have another election sometime in the near future and we don't want any of our candidates unduly confined by lack of money that should be coming their way, a legitimate election return. In some cases, it's tens of thousands of dollars. There's another question I'd like to ask Elections Canada, because I honestly don't know the answer to this.

With the candidates in question, have their entire election rebates been withheld or just the portion that Elections Canada has deemed to be inappropriate? In other words, we all know in campaigns there are many expenses. We have to pay for campaign offices and signs, and sometimes we even have to pay for staff if we can't find enough volunteers. There are personal expenses of the candidates. The limit in a lot of cases—I can only use my own as an example—is roughly $70,000. That's the campaign expense limit that I had in the 2006 election.

We maxed out, so our campaign return then would be—was it 60% back in 2006?—roughly $38,000. What I don't know is whether Elections Canada is holding back the entire return because of perhaps a $2,000 invoice that might be in question, or are they only holding back that invoice and the rebate based on that invoice? I'd like to know that. But if they're in fact holding back the entire amount, that's a significant amount of money that our candidates are at risk of not even having available for the next election campaign. That's why we want to get this court case dealt with as quickly as possible.

If we could get this committee to agree to my motion, we would then be able to get all the facts, the financial disclosures, out and examined thoroughly by this committee. I would like nothing more than for the committee to come up with a consensus report that says we have done a thorough examination of all parties, we have found that there are really no inconsistencies or contraventions, and we would strongly encourage Elections Canada to reconsider their position of not releasing the election refunds for these candidates in question.

(1410) It doesn't appear that's going to be the case. Maybe that's the motivation, Chair. We talked earlier about what the motivation is behind the opposition's refusal to accommodate and to agree with my motion. Maybe that's it; maybe they think that by stonewalling they can actually cause Elections Canada to delay in paying the election rebates back to our candidates. I don't know. We're just spitballing here, but there has to be something over there, because I can't see a legitima