For the benefit of those who do not have the amendment, the amendment reads:
and should the Committee find in their investigations similar ethical practices by other parties, the Committee will broaden their investigations to include the study of these ethical practices and make recommendations to Elections Canada as to whether these ethical practices ought to be continued.
Now, we've spoken and debated on this amendment for quite some time. Mr. Tilson, last week, added an amendment to the amendment, or a subamendment, such that after “by other parties”, “or in past elections” be put into that amendment as well.
We've had some excellent dialogue and some excellent discussion as to why this amendment should be put in place. There's a pervasive problem in Parliament today, and it can be characterized, possibly, by what I would term as a Pharisaical attitude whereby we get up on our perches--and when I say “we”, I say it seems to be pervasive--and we proclaim “I thank you, God, that I'm not like one of these.” We have this attitude that this is something that is prevalent in this party. This is something that's prevalent in that party, but it's just not here.
I would argue, and continue to argue.... I'm actually quite glad that Mr. Hubbard brought this motion forward, because it gives us an opportunity to expose that. I humbly submit that no one is immune to this attitude. It seems, as I said, to be pervasive. The very fact that this motion by Mr. Hubbard should single out one particular party and should single out an attitude or an action by a particular party should make us very concerned. It should make us very concerned for a number of reasons.
I would suggest that it should make us very concerned, first of all, that if we as a party, and as the Conservative Party, claim that this action is something that is being used and utilized.... This is just a tactic that, as I think Mr. Poilievre pointed out very well in past weeks, was invented by the Bloc and something that enables parties—
:
It's like the song says: people are the same wherever you go.
I said that if there is a problem, I want to know—and I believe that too. I say that with all sincerity.
We are completely sure that our actions and the actions of the parties are legal and will be proven so in a court of law. You all recognize that there is an action in front of the courts now, but we are not afraid to find the truth. If the parties opposite were really concerned about justice, and I believe they are, they would demand to know—listen carefully—why the Conservative Party has been singled out and refused a reimbursement of its funds, or at least they would have a modest sense of curiosity.
Again, going back to what I said first, if the allegations we make are true, then it's guarding of each other's rights, it's guarding of each other's dignity, it's guarding of each other's good name that is beneficial to each and every one of us. Why? Because in so doing, we guard our own. In so doing, we guard our neighbours. And in so doing, we make our country stronger.
There were a number of points made last time. Mr. Nadeau is not with us today. It's very unfortunate. He's an excellent member of Parliament. I want to address some of those points.
He said it was only Conservatives who had this problem. That's not true. We have repeatedly said, yes, Elections Canada has made a charge that it's the Conservative Party, but as my colleague here has pointed out many times--and he has a whole book full of example after example--this in-and-out strategy is used by all parties and by lots of members. That is the first point I wanted to talk about.
I think it bears repeating that it may be degrees. That's very possible. It may be that one party uses it more extensively than another, or that one party uses higher funds than another. But we've nothing to fear by investigating this, because we'll just get to the bottom of it; and again, we can make some recommendations as to what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed.
On that same point, Mr. Nadeau said we are being charged. That is not true. We're being investigated. There's a big difference. One is charged when there is criminal intent, when laws are being broken. This is not the case. The Conservative Party is being investigated. Every time we make reference to this particular case, and more specifically when we speak about the Conservative Party, we need to be reminded that when the word “charged” is used.... We haven't been charged, we're being investigated.
It was stated by Mr. Nadeau too that there was a search by the RCMP. Again, that is not true. Let us be factual. Let us be correct. Elections Canada seized documents; that is true. The RCMP was there to assist Elections Canada, not to seize the documents but just to be there.
Mr. Ken Epp: --because Elections Canada is under the--
The Chair: Mr. Epp, order.
An hon. member: We have to go to the blues.
The Chair: Order.
The committee passed a resolution and sustained it, okay. There's no more debating what we're debating. We are debating the motion that you have received a copy of, that I sent down to you so you could read it carefully, and that is the motion, with the amendment and the subamendment added to it, that is before the committee now for debate. That's what's in order, and we're not going to discuss whether it's in order, okay. It is in order, and that has been decided.
I want to give the floor back to Mr.--
An hon. member: I have a point of order.
An hon. member: Yes, I have a point of order.
The Chair: Okay, we haven't had a valid point of order yet, so I would ask all the honourable members to be very careful.
Mr. Poilievre, on a point of order.
You're right, Mr. Chair. I appreciate what you're saying, because when we break our tempo here...and those members who were here at the last meeting recognize that as we began to develop our theme, there was excellent argument that was presented first of all by Mr. Tilson. It's unfortunate that Mr. Tilson isn't here.
I think, Mr. Hiebert, you brought forward some good...and that's what we're trying to do here. Mr. Tilson at the last meeting brought forward some excellent legal arguments. I'm trying to bring forward some good moral arguments. I think we saw that was really being played out well, so I want to continue on.
Mr. Chair, could I have a motion to adjourn?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Some hon. members: Non-debatable.
An hon. member: Call the vote.
Can we get order in the room? The chair can't conduct a.... Order, please.
There has been a motion to adjourn. All those in favour of adjournment?
Mr. Russ Hiebert: I'd like to have a polled vote, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Clerk, would you please call the vote on the motion to adjourn?
It's a tie vote. The chair votes no.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
The Chair: The first meeting was quite an embarrassment, and I'm sorry for that. I'm trying hard to cooperate and make sure people have ample opportunity to put their arguments on the table. I think we had some good input on the motions before us, keeping them reasonably relevant with not much repetition.
Last time, as soon as we started the meeting, there was a motion to adjourn. I don't understand that. As soon as a member has to take a phone call or something like that, people want to start asking for adjournment. Now there are signals of the true intent.
In my notes I see that all that we've done in the first half hour is go through seven examples of repetition, five points of order that were not points of order, and very little substantive contribution to debate on the motions. It is important that members have an opportunity to put points on without repetition. We have to make sure that everybody has the information required to make informed, relevant decisions.
We're losing both of those arguments right now. If it continues, and if the members are saying we might as well adjourn the meeting or something like that, then effectively that's saying we might as well stop talking about this and we'll put the questions. If that's what the members want--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Excuse me.
:
I appreciate that. I'm going to a new area that I don't think anybody.... Now, I'm sorry I missed last Thursday's meeting, but I heard it was quite good and I wish I could have been here.
I'm going to speak to “in past elections”, which I think is the amendment that's actually on the floor. Is that not correct?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Mike Wallace: So we have that subamendment to the amendment, and the amendment talks about recommendations to Elections Canada, and the main motion talks about certain election campaign expenses.
I think it's important for us as members of this committee, if this motion actually ends up passing, because we're just debating.... It's not passed yet; it may not pass. I'm taking the assumption that some day it may pass, and when that happens, then this committee will be looking at certain election campaign expenses and recommendations to Elections Canada and what happened, not just in the last election in 2006 but in past elections. That's if the subamendment passes, the other amendment passes, and the main motion passes. So I'm going to work on that assumption.
But I think it's important for us, as members of this committee, to understand what we're actually talking about. I have a copy of the last Canada Elections Act. I think it's important for us to understand, when we're talking about expenses, certain expenses, what that might entail. The fact of the matter is that Elections Canada's job is really to manage and run the federal elections legislation that's been passed by this House.
For us to do a quality job as members of this committee, I think we should understand this legislation.
The Chair: Order.
Mr. Mike Wallace: How is that out of order? The whole thing mentions election expenses.
If I may, colleagues, I made that ruling with regard to the differentiation between testimony that will come, should we engage in this study, and debate on the importance of doing this. I do understand that there is a fine argument that people can make, but it is not going to be helpful to start going through the Canada Elections Act. We understand that we are going to have to hear from witnesses who can give us the authoritative, expert advice on this, should we do the study.
So Mr. Wallace, I encourage you--
Mr. Mike Wallace: I'm going to use your own words here, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Order, Mr. Wallace. Order.
Mr. Mike Wallace: These are your own words:
The crafters of the Constitution of Canada and our laws now in the Constitution have extended extraordinary privileges to members of Parliament. Those privileges, in brief, would include such things as the matter to speak freely in this place, to represent the interests of constituents without having fear....
That was from Paul Szabo, two Thursdays ago, in the House of Commons.
How on earth, Mr. Chair, can you say that in the House of Commons and not allow me to speak freely to the motion that's here in front of us and the amendment? How is that possible?
The Chair: Order. Order.
Mr. Réal Ménard: J'invoque le Règlement.
Mr. Mike Wallace: And I've got more quotes for you.
The Chair: Wipe the smirk off your face. Wipe the smirk off your face.
Mr. Mike Wallace: I'll wipe the smirk off my face when you start living by your own words in the House of Commons.
The Chair: Order. Order.
An hon. member: Please, respect the chair.
The Chair: Keep in mind that--
Mr. Mike Wallace: Those were your words. Keep that in mind.
An hon. member: Just listen, Mike.
An hon. member: Don't be impolite.
The Chair: Keep in mind that this was in regard to the decision of the Ethics Commissioner and the debate of the House with regard to a legal proceeding, a lawsuit, of an honourable member of Parliament and his rights. This is not a parallel issue.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: So we have no right to speak in this committee; is that what you're saying to us, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Réal Ménard: J'invoque le Règlement.
The Chair: I will come to you, yes. I have made note of it, and I'm going to deal with it, but I have to finish with this first. I think it's important.
Now, we are debating a subamendment to an amendment to a motion. Some members have talked about the subamendment in the context of the motion and the amendment as well. Some have made some assumptions. But that is understandable; it's pretty hard to talk to just “or in past elections” and be totally relevant if you only have four words to play with. So we understand that.
But Mr. Wallace, we do need to have expert witnesses with regard to the Canada Elections Act, and that is testimony that is not relevant to the debate. In my view, it is not relevant to the debate of this motion or the proposed amendment or subamendment. I do not want to get into a situation where somebody is going to walk us through the whole Canada Elections Act when in fact the motion, as you know....
If you look, Mr. Wallace, back to.... You're laughing at me again; second time.
Mr. Mike Wallace: I'm listening. I'm not laughing, Mr. Szabo; I'm a happy guy.
An hon. member: Mr. Ménard's making him laugh.
The Chair: Hold it.
Again, I want to encourage members to remember that if you--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: [Inaudible--Editor]
The Chair: Mr. Poilievre, please. Order.
To go back to the ruling on the admissibility of the Hubbard motion, we know that under our mandate it has to be restricted to public office holders in terms of its....
We are not going to get into opining at all on the Conservative Party of Canada in the matter it has between the Chief Electoral Officer and the act. We're talking about the activities of candidates who became public office-holders and, after the election, filed election expenses and returns that have been challenged by Elections Canada. Subsequent to becoming public office-holders, they have now been named by the Chief Electoral Officer as being parties to this matter, which was fully exposed in April. As you may recall, at that time we were talking about whether or not there were any obligations for any of those persons to make any reports or filings or to recuse themselves from any activities. This is what went on at that meeting.
So it's not so much what the Canada Elections Act is and what it does. The court is going to determine that. We are not going to have a play in that.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: --everything could be amended. This was Charles Hubbard's subamendment to a motion from the Bloc, where you allowed the committee to change everything--
The Chair: Mr. Hiebert, order, please.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: --after the word “that”.
The Chair: Order, order.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: I would like that precedent to stand within this committee so that we can continue to have rules that actually live within the Standing Orders of this House of Commons.
The Chair: Order. Thank you, Mr. Hiebert. Order, please.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: Until you recognize the fact that you've allowed this precedent in the past, I will continue to make these points. You have ruled this way in the past--
The Chair: That was with regard to the Mulroney issue.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: It doesn't matter what it was with regard to. You allowed an amendment to change everything after the word “that”.
The Chair: Order. Order. Order.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: It altered the scope, it changed the depth--
The Chair: Mr. Hiebert, for the final time--
Mr. Russ Hiebert: Well, Mr. Chair, you--
The Chair: For the final time, Mr. Hiebert! I do not hear you at this meeting.
Now, I want to inform members--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: --that the chair does not make decisions unilaterally here. Any of the decisions taken on the motions, etc., in fact have been affirmed by the committee. They've been ruled on by the chair. They may have been challenged by the committee--
Mr. Russ Hiebert: It's nonsense, Mr. Chair. You know it's nonsense. You were there, and you allowed it to happen.
What's happening here is a kangaroo court. It's just unbelievable. And you're allowing it to continue like this.
The Chair: Mr. Hiebert, please; I'm not--
Mr. Russ Hiebert: It's an Alice-in-Wonderland place: what's up is down, what's down is up.
The Chair: Just unplug his mike.
A voice: It's not on.
The Chair: It just doesn't go on for the rest of this meeting.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: That the chair takes that power upon himself is unbelievable--
The Chair: Just hold it, Mr. Hiebert.
You know, this is because of the disrespect and the disorder of you, Mr. Hiebert.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: It's because of what we're experiencing from you as chair.
You can pretend that you have the support of the opposition behind every one of your decisions, but until you start facing reality, Mr. Chair, you're going to continue to get these kinds of opposition points from the members of the government.
An hon. member: Incroyable; respect the chair.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Order, please. Order. Order.
Colleagues, I want to ensure that the committee has the opportunity to debate the matters before us right now. As I think the members will know, it is improper to reopen matters that the committee has already ruled upon and decided upon.
We may not like everything that happens, but I want to remind members again that you can speak when you're recognized by the chair and you have the floor--or when you have a legitimate point of order, and we haven't heard one yet. Most of the meeting has been people talking just for the sake of wanting to hear themselves talk. They just want to rant and continue to disrupt the meeting. It's disorderly conduct. It's disrespect for the chair. It's disrespect for all of our other members.
The chair of a standing committee has no power to censure or to name a member. The chair has the authority not to recognize a member because of disrespect for the committee. The chair can also suspend the committee meeting or seek adjournment of the meeting if order can't be restored.
We'll see how it goes. It's really up to the members; it's not up to the chair. The committee will determine this. Sometimes, if one member is particularly the reason for the problem, the other members will make a collective effort to encourage the member to behave himself or herself. The committee is going to decide what happens here. Since there are votes at 5:45 and bells at 5:30, my intent would be that we adjourn by 5:30.
It is possible that the House will rise on Wednesday at the end of the business day or sometime in the afternoon, but it is my intent that we will have a meeting on Thursday. Should the House adjourn until September 15, we will meet on Thursday at one o'clock or something like that, but if there is business as usual, our regular meeting is at 3:30. We'll have to give you notice, but I'll give you that notice right now.
We have one hour left, and I'm going to encourage members to use it the best way they can to provide constructive input about the matters before us. We will pick it up again on Thursday, either at one o'clock or 3:30, depending on what happens with the House.
I want to leave it at that.
Mr. Wallace still has the floor.
:
Thank you. And thank you for that ruling. I don't agree with it, because let me put it this way: I never even got started.
The subamendment I'm speaking to is the addition of “in the past elections”. Now, Mr. Chair, I have been involved in past elections. I've been involved in past elections as a candidate. In 2004, I was a candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada. I've been involved in past elections as a campaign manager. I've been involved in past elections as a candidate for nomination in 1997, in which I did not receive the nomination. I was with the Progressive Conservative Party, as it existed at that time, and I ran as a nomination candidate.
I think it's important that if this amendment passes and the subamendment passes.... The amendment talks about similar ethical practices of other parties, and that the committee will broaden its investigation to include ethical practices and make recommendations. Those recommendations would obviously affect Elections Canada in how they operate, not just how the legislation is put but how they operate.
And for me, as someone who has experience in previous elections as a candidate and as a campaign manager.... I was a campaign manager in 1993. In 1997, I was a nomination candidate. And when was the next one? It was in 2000. They were so quick.
:
I think it's important for this committee, if this motion sees the light of the day and passes eventually, that we do look at past elections. Because my involvement, and that of many of us around the table...and Ms. McDonough has joined us, and she's been in a number of past elections. It's interesting to find out if the practices from the elections I was involved in, whether it was in 2004, 2000,1997,1993--those are the big ones I was involved with--have changed.
I know you don't want me reading from it, but there have been changes to the Elections Act that cover off the past, the election in 2006. But for us to do a proper job as members of this committee, we need to look at the differences. That's why I think this subamendment is important. Whether the difference in what has been allowed in the past from an advertising point of view is in the limits, whether it's how it's funded, or whether candidates can have money from their federal party or send money to the federal party for spending, or how that money is spent, or what identification needs to be on that advertising.... As you all know, you have to put the official agent on the bottom of your lawn signs--all national advertising.
Mr. Chair, I am talking about the specific item that we're talking about, the different practice that may have occurred in past elections, when parties and individuals may have operated in a certain manner based on the rules that existed at that particular point. I don't know if they have changed. I don't know if they've gotten stricter, or less strict, or whether that makes a difference. But I think it's important for this committee to understand what the Elections Act says now, what the Elections Act said then, if we are going to...which I'm supporting, by the way. I am supporting the addition of past elections in this motion, because my own personal experience in terms of advertising is that it was all local. We raised enough money to spend locally. We didn't have surplus that went to the party. And in the campaigns I've been involved in, either as a campaign manager, as a candidate, or as a nomination candidate, the party didn't send money.
That's why the part about the past elections is important in this, because if we find that public office-holders at any time in the past, in any election.... If the rules changed, did they change to the good? Let me put it that way. Are we doing the right thing? Did we do something different as a party, as a campaign manager, or as an official agent in previous elections from what the Elections Act states here?
I think for us to ask questions.... Let me assume that these motions all pass, I want to be able to call people and witnesses from past elections who have been campaign managers, who have been official agents, who have been involved with political parties, even political parties that don't exist anymore, on how they handled their finances when it came to sharing their funds with their candidates and, in terms of the candidates, with their national party.
Now, some of those national parties don't exist anymore, but I think it's still important for us to understand the process, because this is what this whole thing is about. At the end of the day, the Conservative Party has not denied anything. Candidates and the national party have shared dollars to be able to advertise the national party. For example, in New Brunswick I understand there's another party that pooled their money to buy advertising. I want to know whether in past elections that was done. I want to know, under Elections Canada's review of the act, whether under the rules that existed at the time of past elections it was legal for them to pool money. And we don't have to go that far back.
Let's just look at the 2004 election. Was that pooling of money done, and if it was done, does that affect any ethical standards of any public office-holders, which is what the original motion talks about? So it's important for us to understand what happened in 2004.
I believe it's important for us to know the public office-holders, many of whom continued on between elections. The year 2006 was a unique situation. There was a change in government. So lots of public office-holders were brand new to being public office-holders, whereas from 2000 to 2004 those public office-holders were often the same people.
So I would be interested to see, as a committee member, that a review of past election expenses, or certain election expenses, as the main motion says, applies. Make sure those rules that those public office-holders were operating under.... Has there been a change, and how did that change affect the advertising and expenses that happened in 2006?
The motion, as it's presently stated, which I'm open to having changed, says “the Conservative Party of Canada”. The Conservative Party of Canada--
:
Well, I have the floor, and whether you agree with my point or not isn't the issue; it's whether I'm entitled to talk to my point. But I hear what you're saying, and you're interested in moving on.
So here is the issue I have also with this amendment—that's why I think it's important. The main motion talks about certain election campaign expenses, and if this motion is to pass, Mr. Chair, I don't think that's detailed enough. I'm looking in the legislation we have now. It has election advertising, and there's a listing in there under section 320. And I'm not saying this isn't going to be complicated. I'm not in favour of the motion generally, and this is why I'm trying to talk my colleagues, including my Liberal friends, into not supporting this.
They should be withdrawing this, because this is opening up a big can of worms, a long, long process that I don't think they're willing to stand up to the scrutiny for. I think if we are going to look at past elections, which was in the amendment, all election campaign expenses that the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc, and the Conservatives had—all four of us—and in previous elections what the Alliance did, what the Reform did, what a number of other parties have done, we should be looking at those expenses and what they mean, how they have changed. We are talking about making recommendations to Elections Canada here on how it administers the act, and I think we have to have an understanding if we are going to make informed, appropriate recommendations. We need to be informed on how it interpreted the legislation, based on what the legislation was, on election expenses—and I mean all election expenses, not certain ones—
An hon. member: I have a point of order.
Mr. Mike Wallace: My God, the wording is right in the motion. How can that be—
Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment...he's used the word, and that's his choice, but he put in handwriting, as a last edition, “ethical practices”. This refers to the activities of somebody under the Canada Elections Act. It has nothing to do with the code of ethics for public office-holders.
They're two different.... There definitely is a problem. I just want the members to understand that. Mr. Wallace is now talking about making ethical guidelines in the Canada Elections Act.... That's pursuant to Mr. Van Kesteren's, but not the main motion.
Mr. Mike Wallace: But it's there.
The Chair: Okay. I just want members to know that our job.... I'm not sure Mr. Van Kesteren really intended that we were to somehow come up with a whole new set of ethical guidelines for candidates under the Canada Elections Act. I don't know that.
An hon. member: It's possible.
The Chair: He may want to speak to it.
In any event, I thought it was important to understand that if you put all these together, there are some contradictions.
Mr. Wallace.
:
Yes, that's right. I'm actually coming to the end of the points I wanted to make.
For past elections, the reason this is important...I've covered off the election expenses piece, and I'm not going there. On the ethical piece, the code of conduct has changed from previous years. It became a lot stricter, in my view, for public office-holders in 2006, and I think that's why this subamendment is important.
If we find in our deliberations—if we get there—that we need to look at other activities of public office-holders from previous elections from the ethical code point of view, whether that code applied to them.... And I think it's a great opportunity for us to look at past elections, because they're not that far past—2004 and 2000—and we can see a transition of the parties. Let's look at the ethical code that applied to public office holders in past elections. It's right in the motion: the ethical standards, the ethical practices; there is a definition piece about practices.
Were there any violations, based on the Elections Act of the day? I think we need to look at the Elections Act of the day in 2004 and in 2000, and if this motion happens to pass, we have to look at the ethics code that was put in place.
Let's remind committee that the ethics code at one point, and not that long ago, prior to 2004, was administered by the Office of the Ethics Counsellor, an office that was criticized for not being independent from government; the Prime Minister ran it, basically. Now I think we've done the right thing by setting up an independent office that reports on the code of public office-holders directly to Parliament. And I think that's an important distinction.
We need to look at seeing what happened in previous elections. We don't have to go too far back. I think we can go to 2000. People are still around, I think, from 2000, and maybe 2004. A lot of the public office-holders are still around. Their election expenses are easily accessible on the Elections Canada website, which I have looked for and looked at for previous years.
The code of conduct, which is listed here in the main motion, and the ethical practices—that “the committee will broaden their investigations to include the...ethical practices and make recommendations”.... Let's look at the ethical practices based on the code that was in place in 2004 for public office-holders. Let's look at the code that was in place in 2000 for public office-holders and see whether there is any transition and then see what the transition is in 2006 with the new code that we have brought in, which has more teeth to it.
That's why it's important that we look at these last elections. We can't look at this one election in isolation, because that's not really fair to those brand new public office-holders. We have to look at the history. It's important to look at history, because the history of how things operate is how we got to where we are today. If we don't, as committee members, understand the evolution of the code of conduct, who administered it, how it affected Elections Canada, how it affected the funding of elections, how individual public office-holders participated in the election, how the spending was done, who made those determinations, how much sharing was done with their national parties; if we don't know, I don't think it's fair, as committee members.... If we don't know where we've come from, how do we know what changes we can make in terms of recommendations as a committee?
My issue is—and it's been pointed out by the chair in his interventions—that this isn't just politics. This can get very complicated. I don't mind this committee looking at it for a year, if that's what it takes.
:
Madame, I agree with you.
The members will be familiar, and if they would like to consult, there are a couple very good paragraphs in Marleau and Montpetit about the subject matter of repetition and relevance, and they both in fact are very much linked.
The simple guide for members should be that if you have said it, if you have made your point, or if somebody else has said it and made their point, it is not helpful to the determination of our deliberations to repeat it. It's considered to be taking up useful time that could be used by members who want to speak to add any other new considerations for the members to have in mind when they vote.
We have covered past elections about the code, and about the Canada Elections Act. They are complicated, and we've done so at least three times.
Mr. Wallace, if you want to check the blues, please do so. I believe, according to my records, at least three times we've covered this ground, and I encourage you to accept it. The point is made, and we should move on.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me this opportunity.
First of all, I'd like to commend you. I'm very sympathetic to you in terms of the treatment you are getting from the members. You are doing a wonderful job here.
The other issue is that these Conservative friends of mine sitting on the other side are not getting it. They can call the issue that we are dealing with here election fraud, or an in-and-out scheme, or in-and-out financing, or whatever they want. They can call it fraud that they committed, or whatever. But I can tell you one thing: this study is about their exceeding the spending limit under Elections Canada. They have overspent their central spending limit. That is what we are studying here. No other party has done that.
Mr. Ken Epp: How is this relevant?
Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: It is relevant, Mr. Epp. This is exactly what we are studying.
They can filibuster this meeting for a day or two, but if they want an open, transparent government, they should be cooperating here with you as the chair because of all the crap you have to take from these members.
Second, we have been studying this motion for the last so many days, but it's been nothing but their filibustering. In fact, they should come clean on this one and should be supporting this motion if they have nothing to hide.
I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity. I will move it to the next speaker. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First and foremost, I want to say to the members of the Conservative Party that here on this side of the table, we're not fooled by the filibustering they are currently doing. For three or maybe even four meetings now, the Conservative members have been talking endlessly. You have constantly had to call them back to order, and to ask them to show some discipline and respect. As a result, last week, on Thursday and Friday, before question period in the House, there were at least two statements under Standing Order 31 in which members mentioned the Conservative members' lack of discipline at this committee. And each time, at least in my case, it was a tremendous pleasure to say that we supported you as chairman.
We're asking you to be even stricter in order to restore order and courtesy to this committee. One Conservative, whom I could name, is laughing while I talk about restoring order and courtesy to this committee, and I think you've got your work cut out for you, Mr. Chairman. It's a perfect example of the lack of respect that Conservative members have been showing you. It also disrupts our work, Mr. Chairman.
:
Your point was for me to explain.
Order, please.
Now, Madame Lavallée has been patient. Actually, she has not interrupted the committee. On this matter she's obviously expressing her concern that we're not making progress. I think that's a relevant point to be made. I think she is explaining the reasons she feels we're not making progress, such as repetition by members, or irrelevance, or simply being procedural, or whatever. It's arguable that the frustration is well founded. It wouldn't be there if everybody would simply follow the rules of the committee.
In Mr. Wallace's case, it was with regard to the repetition.
I'm getting this conversation from Mr. Hiebert. I don't know why, Mr. Hiebert. I really don't think your interruptions are helpful.
It's not just Mr. Wallace. It has happened two other times in our proceedings that I've taken the floor away from a member after three times of going back, even after I've ruled. I think it's the only way. I've given some latitude. I'm trying to take some advice from members, or sense what the members.... But being asked three times just to respect the chair's ruling is enough. If the members feel that's a little too rigorous.... Madame Lavallée says I'm not rigorous enough. I'm trying to sense from the members whether you want me to be more rigorous.
I know that I have a problem with maybe being too rigorous when members challenge the rulings of the chair, but I think I've been consistent. I want to hear from the members. My job is to hear from the members.
:
I would invite Mr. Poilievre to get a hold of himself, Mr. Chair.
I will continue, Mr. Chair, by saying that we are dealing with a very disagreeable attempt that will, no doubt, not work. Ultimately, this is a diversionary tactic. The government knows that it has broken the rules and that there is an Elections Canada investigation. They would like to divert attention by broadening the scope of this committee's work through the motion that was initially tabled. Mr. Chair, this is shameful.
I remember that, when they were in the opposition, they presented themselves, through their statements in the House, day after day, saying that they wanted to restore moral order. These people wanted to embody integrity and ethics, Mr. Chair. I am using the word “ethics” in its etymological sense. What a disagreeable sight to find ourselves here still trying — my colleague Ms. Lavallée said so — after four meetings, to shed light on something. People with nothing to hide should agree to open those books. We are well aware that this is not the case.
Mr. Chair, we will not be the willing accomplices of those who do not want democracy to follow its course. This committee has extremely important work to do; it must do it.