:
This is the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It has to do with the Conservative Party of Canada's activities during the 2006 election in relation to certain election campaign expenses, and the ethical standards of public office-holders as a consequence.
Colleagues, as you know, the committee submitted a list of 79 witnesses. I want to first report to the committee that the clerk's office did an excellent job in making all attempts to contact these proposed witnesses. The chair had no direct contact with any witness at any time, other than Mr. Mayrand, whom you know I spoke to in our last meeting, and Mr. Saunders, the public prosecutor, who contacted me with regard to questions about their appearance.
I'm not going to give a full report on the 79 witnesses, but I can indicate that a very large number of them gave valid or compassionate reasons for not being available to appear before us during these four days of hearings.
I also will indicate that on July 31 I did in fact issue summonses for 31 persons. These summonses were issued because there was no response to our invitation to appear, or they declined to appear, or they would not confirm their attendance on the day. Those who responded, as I indicated, with valid or compassionate reasons were not summonsed.
I want to also indicate to members that I have received an opinion from the law clerk of the House of Commons in regard to the sub judice convention. As you know, it is a voluntary convention. It basically is a statement that a witness will not be able to answer a question because it involves another proceeding in which they are a party. However, in regard to our hearings, since Mr. Mayrand's situation was specific, the law clerk has indicated that the sub judice convention is not--and I repeat, not--a valid reason for not answering a question. Mr. Mayrand did invoke that privilege as it was agreed upon as a condition of his appearing as a witness, as you know.
Finally, with regard to general process, this morning we have six witnesses on the orders of the day. On Friday, one witness wrote to the clerk advising that this was the only day they would be available, but that did not happen until after summonses had been issued and the notices of meetings with the witness schedule had been put in place. This morning we do have five of the six witnesses, I believe, who have appeared. This is a two-hour session. It's going to take the two hours to deal with them. However, the witness who wrote to the clerk, which I found out about on Friday, has appeared this morning. That is Mr. Doug Finley. As you know, he's the campaign manager of the Conservative Party of Canada's campaign.
I responded on Friday to Mr. Finley that we did not have time this morning to hear him. He was scheduled to appear on Wednesday. I also offered, because of our light schedule on Thursday, that this would be another opportunity for him to appear. At this time I'm proposing to move forward with the actual scheduled witnesses, and should there be time at the end, we will deal with Mr. Finley, if that's acceptable to the committee.
Finally, with regard to—
An hon. member: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, please—
The Chair: Let me just finish my opening statement.
Finally, with regard to the timing of the various sessions, although they're generally specified, as you know, the committee can go for a period that they feel is appropriate to a logical stopping point. We're going to be somewhat flexible. I'm not going to just cut people off.
The last thing is that I'd like instruction from the committee. As you know, during the hearings before the public accounts committee, all witnesses were sworn in. I'm seeking whether or not the committee is of the view that witnesses in this proceeding should be sworn in.
Could I get an indication?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: To swear them in? Okay. So all the witnesses will be sworn in.
That said—
Then on the matter of points of order, as you know, Mr. Goodyear, points of order relate to repetition, relevance, or procedural matters. If you have a point of order, sir, I'd like you first to indicate the basis—is it repetition, relevance, or procedural—before you state your case.
Mr. Goodyear, you don't have the floor, sir. Please let me finish my statement.
As I indicated in my opening statement today, we did receive confirmation of the witnesses who are before you. It's a two-hour session. It's going to take some time. I did indicate that we would hear from Mr. Finley after these witnesses. That's not denying to hear.
An hon. member: I have a point of order.
The Chair: Just a moment.
An hon. member: You have to recognize his point of order.
The Chair: Yes, when the chair finishes his statement.
An hon. member: No, immediately.
The Chair: No, that's not true.
That is what I had indicated. I know that Mr. Finley has a busy schedule and he indicated that this was the only time he could be here. We're trying to accommodate him, but because we had—
:
Yes, it's pertaining to relevance, Your Honour.
The relevance of Mr. Finley is that since this is pertaining to the Conservative Party of Canada 2006 election campaign, contrary to the Standing Orders that govern this committee, it would seem to me that it's relevant that we hear from Mr. Finley ahead of any of the other witnesses you have scheduled for this morning.
You indicated, to begin with, that you had such a difficult time finding witnesses, such a difficult time, that you went to the extraordinary measure of sending out summons. We have a witness you should very much want to hear from, as should the members of the jury on the other side, and I encourage them to allow Mr. Finley to be the first speaker on this matter.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is not a point of order. I would simply like to make an intervention about whether or not Mr. Finley should in fact be heard today. I would argue it will be unfair to the witnesses who have been called and scheduled if Mr. Finley is heard. It will also be unfair to us, who spent the weekend getting ready to question a certain group of witnesses we were told would be here.
We very much want to hear from Mr. Finley; I think he's a key witness. But there's an order to things that should roll out. When you have 30 or 40 witnesses, they have to be clustered in such a way that there's a logical roll-out and flow of information. Mr. Finley should be heard from at his convenience, I suppose, but not today. He doesn't get to dictate that he'll be heard by this committee just because he shows up. It's also not fair to the other witnesses, who may be intimidated by Mr. Finley sitting there, frankly. He's a heavyweight with the party.
:
I would ask Mr. Finley and his associate to please withdraw from the table so we can proceed with our other witnesses. Thank you very much.
Order, please.
Mr. Finley, as you know, the committee indicated they wanted to hear you. I think the point has been made that members have to prepare. You were not on today's order paper. I communicated with you twice on Friday that we could not accommodate you today and that Wednesday was the scheduled day. It's on the notice on the website. I also offered some willingness to have you on Thursday.
The committee will likely have further meetings. If none of these dates are available to you for good reason, we can reschedule you for a future hearing date. But the committee right now has decided it wants to proceed with the scheduled witnesses for whom they have prepared their questions.
I would ask you again, sir, to please leave the table so we can proceed with the witnesses.
An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We have witnesses to hear, and I would like at this time to welcome Louise O'Sullivan, Ann Julie Fortier, Mr. Gary Caldwell, Mr. Réjean Fauteux, and Mr. Joe Goudie.
Thank you, and I apologize to all of you for the delay in these proceedings. We will want to move immediately to the questioning.
Mr. Goodyear has another point of order that he would like to make.
Mr. Goodyear, as you know, the committee had a vote, and I'm going to respect the vote. I'm respecting the vote of the committee, and we will hear from the witnesses when they are scheduled. Thank you. That's not a point of order. You want to debate something that's been decided.
We're going to move on with the witnesses—
An hon. member: On July 16, Mr. Chair, you said that as a member of Parliament and the chair of this committee—
The Chair: Mr. Proulx, for the first round, please, you have seven minutes. Thank you. Carry on.
An hon. member: —dignity and respect for witnesses. Good play, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Order, order.
I want to remind all honourable members that our witnesses are here to assist us in our work. They're all to be treated with dignity and respect, and I expect that all members will take care.
I'm going to move on. We have work to do.
:
I understand. I understand that clearly, with the number of witnesses proposed by the committee, for everybody to make, especially since we have two people representing one riding.... But I had indicated to the members that if everything is fine, we'll have the questions. And then I'm offering them time at the end, if they want to, to add anything, any matter, that they have not addressed.
It is simply a matter of using our time efficiently. We've already wasted a half-hour on political stunts. I want to move forward. The witnesses will have an opportunity to answer the questions. The witnesses have been sworn in, and each of our witnesses will be offered an opportunity to say anything further.
As you know, you are covered by parliamentary privilege. Nothing you say here can be held against you in any other proceeding. This is the place where free speech must take place. This is Parliament.
I want to proceed now. We're going to have witnesses respond to questions. Mr. Proulx will start, and we'll be doing a rotation in our normal fashion.
Mr. Proulx, please, your questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I on for 10 minutes?
The Chair: You have seven minutes.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us this morning. I would like to reassure them by telling them that we will be very respectful of their rights; there will be no intimidation from this side of the table. We simply want to get to the bottom of things to hear their versions of the events.
Mr. Caldwell, I understand that you ran in the 2006 election for the Conservative Party of Canada in the riding of Compton—Stanstead.
:
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your invitation. I must say, however, that I feel somewhat uncomfortable here, although I was a candidate in 2004 for the Conservative Party, given that Mr. Jean Landry and the nine Conservatives who were elected in Quebec—including five members of this committee—were directly involved in the 2006 campaign, but were not invited. I thus do not see why my presence is needed here, given that the notification I received has to do with the activities of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 campaign with respect to election spending.
Contrary to the democratic choice of the Conservative association of Berthier-Maskinongé, I was ousted during the very first week of the elections in December 2005 by the party organizers. Moreover, none of the expenses I used to prepare the campaign were ever reimbursed to me in any way.
After I was ousted, several candidates telephone me about it. I told them what had happened to me and advised them to contact Elections Canada for anything to do with matters related to the Elections Act.
That is when Jean Landry and Liberato Martelli informed me of what was going on. I simply told them to contact Elections Canada as soon as possible.
After that, I thought it would be a good idea to contact Senator Nolin's assistant, Mr. Hubert Pichet, the Hon. Michael Fortier's assistant, Ms. Ginette Tremblay, as well as Karine Leroux in the Prime Minister's Office to tell them about it. Following consultation, according to what Ms. Tremblay told me, they felt that everything was legal. I told her that that was not what I thought. That is what happened in 2006 with respect to myself.
I am now prepared to answer your questions.
[English]
An hon. member: On a point of order, Chair—
An hon. member: We're not allowed to have points of order here.
The Chair: This morning we've had a number of points of order, and in my view they have been, by their nature, obstructive and wasting time.
Order, please, Mr. Goodyear. I'm in the middle of a statement.
It was raised earlier. A member said the chair has to take a point of order immediately. Members like to suggest that the sections of Marleau and Montpetit quite clearly provide that it has to be at a time that is appropriate. The middle of a witness's statement to the committee is not an appropriate time. In the middle of a member's questioning, where it is simply questions on a matter of fact, that is clearly using a point of order to disrupt the attention of the witnesses and the members from what's being said.
A number of members on the Conservative side have called for points of order. The chair wants to respect the members' rights, but when those rights are being abused, I am going to have to deal with it eventually.
Who was first on the point of order? Do you want to decide?
:
Yes, of course. It's on procedure, Chair.
I believe you were very clear at the beginning that there would be no statements given. In fact, you fought us on this issue, that there would be no statements given. Then you allow a statement.
And then I noticed my colleague across the way asked six minutes of questions--I'm not done--and in her final minute she asked for a statement from the witness, and the statement went longer than the one minute left to the party.
So this is very procedural indeed. You allowed no opening statements. Now I'd like you to explain it to the committee.
There were no opening statements by the witnesses. As I had indicated, there were none.
When a member asks for an opinion or for a witness to make some statement, that is the member's right. But it came off her question-and-answer time. And although the witness did go beyond the one minute, we don't cut witnesses off when the time is up. We certainly will give them the prompt to complete. You cannot simply stop a witness in the middle of an important answer, but certainly a member of the committee cannot keep asking a question right past the time limit for that. That's the explanation you asked for.
Now, the second point of order—
:
This pertains to relevance and procedure.
Mr. Proulx's questions...in fact, the questions of both members to this point have been beyond the scope of this committee.
I will quote to you something that you said at 3:45 p.m. on June 19, 2008: “We are not authorized--it is not within our mandate--to determine any ethical standards of any party”.
When I said “point of order”, Mr. Proulx had specifically asked the witness a question pertaining to the ethical standards of a party. The question should have been ruled out of order by the chair, by your own words, Mr. Chair. The next time I say “point of order”, it is to hold you to what you have said.
An hon. member: It is to hold you accountable.
Mr. Dean Del Mastro: It is nothing more than that, and if more questions go beyond the boundaries of the committee, I will say “point of order” again. I can provide that quote.
It's not intimidating.
I would refer the members to the ruling of the chair in determining the admissibility of this motion for debate, which was passed by the committee. The chair is not going to consider every question a member asks, and to determine that it's.... I cannot anticipate what questions members will ask, but if any members feel that a question being asked is out of order, for a good reason, they probably will raise a point of order on the basis of relevance to the motion before us. Okay?
Do we have a further point of order over here? Is that it? No. Okay. I want to move on to Mr. Martin.
An hon. member: Point of order.
The Chair: We'll have Mr. Martin on questions.
Mr. Martin, please, you have seven minutes.
:
Thank you to all the witnesses who came and for your patience and for your willingness to cooperate with the committee. We appreciate it very, very much.
I only have a few minutes, and I would like to touch briefly on three of you, if I can.
I'd like to start with Mr. Goudie. Mr. Goudie is a former CBC journalist, a 10-year veteran of the provincial legislature in Newfoundland, and a former cabinet minister.
We have very limited time, Mr. Goudie, but I would simply ask how it made you feel when you were invited to take part in this election financing plan or scheme by the central party. Did your ethical radar go off at all? Did it seem legitimate to you? How did you feel about it then, and how do you feel about it now? I notice your official agent, Debbie Singleton, who is not a witness here today, made some very strong comments. Do you share her views?
Please, you have the floor.
:
Debbie Singleton was the campaign manager; Gordon Barnes was the official agent for their campaign.
During the campaign itself I was not aware that this had actually taken place. By the time I became the official candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada in that election in 2006, we had 20 days left to campaign. Labrador is 112,000 square miles, with 30 or 32 communities. Travel in the middle of winter was important, and I had to get at it right away.
When Mrs. Singleton was contacted by a representative of the Conservative Party of Canada--and this was her first campaign as campaign manager--she was not particularly alarmed. She had faith in the Conservative Party of Canada, that the right thing was being done, and she then directed the representative to contact the official agent.
I became aware of this matter in early April of this year. Mr. Barnes did raise the matter with me following the campaign in 2006 when we were dealing with the Elections Canada return by candidates. The discussion took place dealing with a number of financial items, and I didn't single this particular one out as being of concern or anything else. When the information appeared on CBC television identifying four candidates in our province from the 2006 campaign as being involved in some kind of a financial scam, my radar went up. I became alarmed. I sought legal advice, and as a result I filed an affidavit.
:
I did. My picture was often taken behind Mr. Gagliano, and people who are not politically inclined might have felt that by association I was part of the scandal.
I was on the PLC board. I held a couple of positions with Mrs. Robillard; I was on the executive in Westmount. I'm a business person. I own my own personnel agency, I have a name downtown, and I wanted to protect my name. So just by association, I left the Liberal Party. At that time I was approached by the Conservative Party. My name was being bandied about. I was still elected. I held an executive city council position, and I left on moral grounds, for different reasons.
My standards are high, and I'm very disappointed with what's happened recently. I'm here of my own volition.
:
I have no doubt about that, and that's why we do regional buys. Thank you.
You said:
Sherbrooke is the media poll for all television programs, and that is exactly why we do regional media buys. It was to be spent on television, and I had confidence in the person who asked me to do it. So it's on that basis of confidence I agreed to do it.
That's very interesting to me.
There's one thing I would like to mention to you, in case you're not aware of it, and perhaps you can tell us. Mr. Mayrand was here a couple of weeks ago, and he stated very clearly and confirmed that under the Canada Elections Act it is perfectly legal, in fact quite routine, for all parties to transfer funds from the national party to local campaigns and back--that the transfer of money is absolutely legal.
You were aware of that, correct?
:
You're not wrong on that. Mr. Mayrand went on to say very clearly that expenses can't be transferred, and that's pretty much what you're saying.
If I may read you an example, please, what we're trying to determine here is ethical standards, and really the only way to do that is to compare colleague to colleague. I'm going to read you a statement, and I hope the chair does not cut me off on this. This is from the director general of the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta:
During the past election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta transferred funds and/or paid for services in kind directly to the candidate on whose behalf [they] were acting as official agent.
We've established that there's nothing wrong with that, right? With transfers of funds, there's nothing wrong there.
The letter goes on to refer to an expense incurred by the national party for northern Alberta candidates, an ad placed in the Edmonton Journal, that should be claimed at the local level. This is a transfer of expense. How do you explain that to be different from what happened to you?
:
I appreciate that. I wasn't actually asking for a comment on the particular circumstance, only how it is extremely similar to what has happened to you.
We have a number of other issues that I could read to you. One, in fact, is an NDP candidate, which is probably why my colleague across the way is so eager to not have his people brought before me. But again, in an attempt to compare candidates to candidates for the purpose of deciding whether something is ethical or not, we understand that the federal NDP party wrote a letter to Libby Davies' financial officer and basically said, we want to transfer money to you on the basis of you spending money on radio announcements.
In that particular documentation—and I have the e-mails here—the financial agent....
Am I out of time? How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?
There is no matter called a “point of clarification”, and there's no opportunity to ask questions of another member unless you're recognized to speak. That's not a point of order.
Mr. Proulx, as you know, we have the opportunity to review the blues. If there is a problem in the translation, I'm sure that you will bring it to the attention of the committee and that an erratum change would be made.
Mr. Hubbard, you have five minutes.
Again, I remind you and the honourable committee that I personally was not aware of this until after the campaign was completed and not really in any detail until the news report came out in April. The money was not spent by us.
Mrs. Singleton and Mr. Barnes were both.... More specifically, Mr. Barnes, my official agent, was directed by a gentleman, Mr. Hudson of the Conservative Party of Canada, once funds had been transferred to our account.... It was explained that 60% of that amount could then be claimed on our election return--which seemed unusual, but nevertheless they were following directions--but that the amount of money transferred to our account would then have to be returned to the Conservative Party of Canada as soon as possible.
Mr. Goudie, I hadn't intended to go this way, but 's questions were really intriguing, so I do want to go this way. First of all, the issue of the 60% back is something we've heard raised a number of times, and of course all parties, as we've indicated, have transferred funds back and forth—every single one of them. They've all claimed the 60% back, something that I personally—and this may not be a party position—don't know that we need in our society. We do handsomely refund taxes to people who make donations.
An hon. member: Why is this...?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro: I'm establishing that question.
:
Okay, right. So as for the 60% return that comes back based on expenses, personally I would like to see it eliminated since we so handsomely reward people who donate to parties already; 75% of what they give is given back to them. Personally, I'm not sure we need that.
We talked a little bit, and Mr. Caldwell spoke about, how he did have informed consent. He was aware of it going on, and so forth, and took the word of the party that this was in fact legitimate, and what we're really talking about is a difference of interpretation. That was indeed covered off by Mr. Mayrand.
Now, from the Liberal sponsorship scandal, there is still over $43 million missing, or about $43 million, that went into campaigns. Now, in each one of those campaigns, 60% of that money was refunded, theoretically. So if you go over the next three elections, there's a total of about $91 million that's now been benefited from the $43 million that's been missing.
An hon. member: On a point of order--
:
Yes, I will give it to you. I'm at the behest of the committee.
Marleau and Montpetit, page 539, says:
Under the Standing Orders, a brief debate on the point of order is possible at the Speaker's discretion.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Okay, that's enough.
It's at my discretion. That's page 539, and it goes on, but this is a straightforward one. It's not a matter that we want to delay the—
The point of order has to do with your recognizing points of order. It's related to procedure.
When Mr. Proulx was asking questions to the witness and Mr. Del Mastro had a point of order related to his questioning, you would not take the point of order. In fact, you deferred it to the end of questioning and then forgot to come back to Mr. Del Mastro. We moved well into the next witness.
When Mr. Del Mastro was in the middle of his question, Mr. Proulx raised his hand on a point of order and everything ground to a halt.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Pierre Lemieux: This is the second huge inconsistency regarding the procedures. The first had to do with no statements from witnesses going to be given, yet we could add a huge statement to the end of question period and go beyond the time limit. And the second one, Chair, was that you're recognizing points of order for certain parties and not for other parties. That is not unbiased.
I'm asking for application of the rules in a consistent manner among all parties. If you're not going to recognize Mr. Del Mastro when Mr. Proulx is asking a question, it's highly ironic that you recognize Mr. Proulx when Mr. Del Mastro is asking a question.
That's my point of order. You are not being consistent in the application of procedure, and it's extremely important in this particular committee meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.
Mr. Lemieux, you will not find in Marleau and Montpetit or in the Standing Orders anything that says a chair must hear a point of order immediately. It is at the discretion of the chair. I certainly have to make a decision. It is not black and white, but it was obvious that a point Mr. Del Mastro had raised was going to cause a problem. Mr. Proulx reacted immediately to the word “sponsorship”; I knew what it was.
With regard to the others, Mr. Lemieux--and let me explain, because I don't want this to go on too much farther--if a witness is in the middle of an answer.... The chair did not recognize one of the those points or order you referred to because you were interrupting a witness in the middle of an important statement.
I will hear it. I have to hear it eventually. But I have to hear it in a way that does not disrupt the ability of either members or witnesses to hear what's being said. This is a serious, important matter. I take it very seriously, and I'm following the rules. But, sir, I cannot—I cannot—as you have asked me, stop the proceedings every time somebody yells “point of order”, because nine out of ten times they are not points of order.
I'm going to do my best. Now, Mr. Del Mastro has two minutes left, and right now I want to complete Mr. Del Mastro's questioning of the witnesses.
Mr. Del Mastro, you have the floor, sir.
:
Yes, my investiture was in May 2005. As a result of these problems, the organizer, Michel Rivard, desperately wanted me to somehow get rid of Mr. Leone and that I should take his place to accept these fabricated expenses. I refused to do so. I did not believe that they would go ahead. I have nothing to hide; I am an honest person with integrity. We prepared the election returns correctly and honestly, and I wasn't going to inflate the election expenses in order to receive a "fat" reimbursement.
Mr. Pierre Coulombe told me that if I did not agree, then it would be too bad, but I would no longer be the candidate. I did not believe that it would happen, because my campaign photographs were ready, I had already reserved my truck and I was waiting for my election signs. It was the first week of the campaign. When I telephoned to find out about my signs, Mr. Paulin Grenier, a regional organizer, told me that I would no longer be conducting the campaign because I had been replaced. Imagine how that shattered my dreams! I had been crisscrossing the district for a year and a half, and it was the new candidate who would reap the benefits of my work. It had become very clear that La Mauricie had become very auspicious for the Conservatives.
In any event, I can look in the mirror and feel proud of myself.
I think it's in the public interest that members have an opportunity to ask their questions and that our witnesses before us, properly sworn in, come here and have an opportunity to respond. We do have time limits for each session of questions, but it has been my practice, as the members well know, certainly not to cut off an answer or at least to allow witnesses to respond to a question that was posed to them. In my view, the witness did not have an opportunity to express her answer to the questions raised by Mr. Tilson, so I've offered to allow her a couple of moments to simply respond to what was posed to her by the honourable member.
Madam O'Sullivan, would you care to make a very brief comment in direct response only to what Mr. Tilson covered with you in the last questions he asked?
:
We're going to carry on. Here is what I'm proposing.
In this round, we have Mr. Martin, Mr. LeBlanc, and Mr. Goodyear remaining, and I'm going to hear.... This is the end of the second round. Then as I had indicated to the witnesses, I'm going to offer to them, if they wish to take it up, an opportunity to make any closing remarks on any matter. I know you've come here to provide information, so if there is anything that you feel has not been covered or that you need to say, I will give you that opportunity before we adjourn this morning's session.
Mr. Goodyear has interrupted the proceedings on a point of order related to...?
One of the most serious allegations in the affidavit and the file to justify the search of Conservative headquarters and the subsequent investigation by the elections commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions is the falsification of financial returns, the falsification of election finance documents, which in and of itself is a very serious offence.
I'd like to ask you, Mr. Fauteux, as an official agent, if you ever saw the invoice dated January 1 for $27,125 from Retail Media to Mr. Caldwell's campaign. Did you personally see that invoice?
:
Yes. Perhaps I should take a moment, if I may, to explain that.
I mentioned earlier the size of the riding of Labrador and the number of communities. The only point I was trying to make was that communities are scattered, and during a winter campaign you travel either by vehicle, by aircraft, by snowmobile, or by walking. With 20 days in a campaign, I was doing a lot of walking, a lot of snowmobiling, and a lot of travel to try to get to all communities. So when this contact was made I was out on the hustings, if that term is acceptable, trying to drum up support for my campaign, to get votes, which is the objective of all of us who are in elected office. When I spoke to Mrs. Singleton about this matter following the news coverage in March and April of this year, she stated then, and repeated it in her affidavit, that she was following the direction of the national campaign. This was her first campaign as a campaign manager. Therefore, she didn't feel there was anything wrong if the national party was directing us. And because I was extremely busy trying to gather support for the campaign, it was not brought to my attention.
Frankly, that's all I was after. Your chief financial officer, whom you selected and who apparently read the rules, had this proposal made from the Conservative Party and thought about it. It was informed consent—they signed for it—and it is regrettable that you didn't know about it.
On this issue of comparisons with respect to ethical standards, let me go to Mr. Caldwell. I'm not asking you to comment on the specific case; I'm just asking how this compares--whether it is better, worse, or the same as what happened to you.
I'm going to read you an e-mail. This is from the affidavit Mr. Goudie has mentioned. This e-mail starts off on March 16, 2006, a few months after the election. The first e-mail is from Lucy. I won't read the last name out of respect, but Lucy is the bookkeeper for the New Democratic Party of Canada. This e-mail says:
Dear Official Agent: Please find attached an invoice from the federal party. The original will follow by mail. It is our understanding that these radio ads promoted your candidate during the election period. Please forward payment to the federal party as soon as possible. The amount should be reported in the candidate's election campaign return.
--in other words, expensed at the local level.
Not very long later, on March 30, Phyllis, who is identified as the financial officer for this NDP candidate, writes back and says:
Hi Lucy, this invoice is not ours. Mindful about the extended campaign and limited budget, we were only able to take out a few ethnic ads, Chinese media
—all coordinated through somebody, the NDP B.C. Chinese media liaison.
A cheque of $1,500 for our portion will be forwarded to the Canadian NDP and cashed. Please check this, because this is really, really bad for our ceiling.
I'm assuming that means it's going to push them over.
Right away, boom—almost the next day, on March 31—there is an e-mail sent back to Phyllis by the bookkeeper for the New Democratic Party. I'll quickly read it:
Subject: Federal Party Invoices.
Dear Phyllis, we are told by the communication folks in B.C. that these radio ads, with the candidate's personal tag at the end, therefore [are] a local expense to be reported under the candidate's expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign—in the case of Vancouver East, $2,612.
The good news is that the federal NDP party will transfer $2,600 to the federal riding association, as we agreed to pay for the ads.
We hope that you are able to squeeze this under the ceiling. Some expenses are not considered election expenses subject to spending limits, such as fundraising costs. Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think you have a problem.
Clearly there's been money transferred from the national NDP party to Libby Davies' riding. Then they demanded payment for an ad that the national party organized, produced, paid for; now they want Libby Davies' local campaign to absorb the expense.
How, sir, is that different from what happened to you?
:
It's procedural, and I want to point out that I've had two points of order earlier and you've accepted them both.
In a previous point of order I asked about the opening statement piece. You said there was none. The tradition of this committee—and this committee belongs to the members, not to the witnesses—is for us to respond to what is said in opening statements. It gives every one of us an opportunity to respond.
The way you've set it up whereby there are closing statements, which I disagree with, is that they will make their statement and leave, and members of this committee will not have an opportunity to debate, discuss, or ask questions on those statements. They are statements that could say absolutely anything, without any recourse.
I'm asking on a point of order that you change your mind so that closing statements not be allowed, particularly when you didn't even allow opening statements.
Thank you.
I outlined what was being proposed, simply because of the time as well as the substantial delay. As you know, the chair is asked to coordinate a process, taking into account knowledge and information about our proceedings and how they may go. It was clear that when you had three different campaigns but in fact six witnesses, and one official agent not able to attend, you would get a lot of duplication in those opening statements. It was my judgment that the best thing to do was to get on with the questions, which were fairly straightforward given the nature of the motion. However, should there be anything that wasn't covered or if a witness made an error in a statement they had made, they should have an opportunity to correct it. This is fairly standard.
So that was my ruling earlier. If you would like to challenge that ruling and make a motion to do something else, then that is your right, sir.
Madame O'Sullivan, Madame Fortier, Monsieur Caldwell, Monsieur Fauteux, Monsieur Goudie, thank you kindly for coming, for your poise and directness and forthrightness with the committee, and for taking the time. I know we are all busy, and particularly in Madame Fortier's case it was quite a sacrifice to come here. I know all of you took some time, but you took this seriously, as the committee does.
As I indicated, I'm inviting you, if you wish, to make a brief closing statement to the committee if you feel there's something that was incorrect, not clear, or that you did not get an opportunity to express because a question didn't come your way. So I will give you a moment or two. I'll be somewhat flexible.
I'm just going to go across the front. So I'd like to start with Ms. O'Sullivan, please.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being able to respond.
First of all, I would like to say that my understanding initially, when this arrangement was being proposed, was that the 60% that would be claimed against that money would be retained by the Conservative fund. Later it was decided it would be available to the riding associations.
Second, I was asked if I had been requested not to respond to the media after this came out in the media. In fact, yes, I did receive a call from someone who told me I should not respond to this question in the media. The person was probably unaware that I was one of the people involved in the media discussion.
Third, when the Conservative Party decided to launch a lawsuit against Elections Canada, Mr. Rivard offered the services of the lawyers of the legal party, because we were initially all cited in the summation in that lawsuit. Eventually the judge decided to remove all but two. But at that point I told him, no, I would not take advantage of the services of the Conservative Party lawyer.
Finally, I would like to add that my financial agent—and I would like to take the occasion to congratulate him—did in fact read the manual.
Finally, I have a suggestion. Whether it be the Conservative Party or any other party, I think this mechanism of a fund by the central party through which all the money is channelled—for example, even the initial $1,000 deposit was made by that fund, the payment of the posters was managed by that fund, and that's why we were not able to claim it—this mechanism whereby candidates delegate, because we did, our authority in this regard to a central fund be re-examined. I think it poses a serious problem with regard to the independence and the accountability of the candidate at the local level.
Finally, I want to thank the chairman, but I must say that after having watched the performance of certain members of this committee I'm in fact really quite worried about the future of our parliamentary institutions.
:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one comment about the situation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am a public administrator. When a grant is received or a promise from a provincial member, or anything else of this kind, it is often accompanied by a letter confirming the amount of the contribution.
The Conservative Fund sent us money, whether by wire transfer or by cheque—I do not see any difference between the two. If the money had been spent in the riding and the candidate or official agent had control over it, then I think Elections Canada would have accepted the expenses because we would have been the ones to have spent the funds.
I would also like to note that when I looked at the association account, it was at zero, and in a riding like ours, we cannot spend money that we don't have.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We're resuming our hearings on the motion adopted by the committee, which reads:
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics 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 certain election campaign expenses in order to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office-holders.
We had this afternoon scheduled, as you had on the notice, colleagues, three witnesses in this panel. I can indicate to you that Mr. Martelli is here with us. He is the candidate for the riding of Bourassa. We also were to have the candidate for Vancouver East, Elizabeth Pagtakhan, and her official agent, Denny Pagtakhan. I was advised earlier this morning that Ms. Pagtakhan, the candidate, was interfered with by her husband not permitting her to be served with the summons and that Mr. Denny Pagtakhan, the official agent, did not make himself available. The bailiff just could not locate him at his home the number of times he attempted to personally serve the subpoena. So neither of them are here. I have just been informed subsequently by the clerk that Ms. Pagtakhan did in fact ultimately get served with a summons but declined to appear.
So we do have one witness here, Mr. Martelli, and we're going to have Mr. Martelli sworn in. We will take questions from the members.
:
It's in response to what you just said, sir, about the two other witnesses not indicating that they would be here.
I can only say that I had my assistant telephone the clerk's office, I believe it was, at least twice, saying that generally speaking when we have committees on Mondays they don't start until 11 o'clock because people have to travel from afar. You and I live in the same area, and you made it, but it was difficult for me to get here by 10 o'clock. I did make it somewhere prior to 11, but I came here; I'm here. We had some witnesses this morning, a whole bunch of witnesses—I don't know how many there were—but we really didn't finish our questioning. I'm just rather annoyed at the process that has been followed, that we have one witness this afternoon.
You must have known on Friday, sir, that these other two witnesses weren't going to appear, and yes, there's some business that's being scheduled, but basically, unless that goes on and on and on, which I hope it doesn't, this afternoon will be a waste. I just consider it poor planning on your part, sir, because you're in charge of these committee meetings, and to arrange for only one witness on a Monday afternoon when we're all prepared to work here until five, somehow you've blown it.
:
With respect, Mr. Tilson, I don't hear a point of privilege at all.
And I can tell you that when you have 79 witnesses to contact and schedule, and when you find out about a week and a half ago from at least two of the proposed witnesses that “the party instructed us not to appear before the committee”.... We had two or three people who basically confirmed the same thing--to decline any invitation to appear.
As a consequence, Mr. Tilson, it was going to be a situation in which, with the people who had valid reasons not to be here plus the people who just decided not to come, we would have had hardly any witnesses. The committee did authorize the chair to summon witnesses if it was felt appropriate under the circumstances. Given that I was aware that there appeared to be directives out that people not accept our invitation to appear, those summonses were issued.
Now, I can also say to you, sir, as you know--and I know you're familiar with the rules in this regard--our summonses are not enforceable without going to the House for approval for the committee to engage the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring a witness to the committee. So right now I can tell you, sir, that you are quite right, I don't know how many people we will have for each morning and afternoon session, because I don't know whether they will respect the summonses served on them by the bailiff engaged by the clerk's directorate on the direction of the chair. We may very well have similar situations like that.
It will be up to the committee to have a discussion as to what, if any, further action it cares to take and whether it cares to report to the House and seek to have these people come and explain why. As you know, a number of other committees have recommended that persons who either did things or did not do things before the committee that they should have done be found in contempt of Parliament, without further sanctions.
I was involved in the George Radwanski one, and that was certainly the same situation. We simply found the person in contempt, without further sanctions.
I don't know how that's going to go, sir, but I can tell you that we took every reasonable step and followed the rules and procedures prescribed by the House of Commons and the clerk's directorate to contact people, to give them proper notice, and to have them come before our committee.
The committee will then have to decide, if people do not show, having been summonsed, whether further action is necessary. And I think the committee should prepare itself for that discussion on Thursday, when we deal with future meetings and future witnesses.
I understand this is a very serious issue, and you know that I raised it tangentially last week when it was reported in the press that the word was out. I think that was the way it was reported. I take this very seriously.
We will deal with this. Because we're dealing with future witnesses and meeting dates, we will probably want to go through all 79 to just confirm to the members.
This is not translated into French, though, is it? And it's updated daily, so....
Let me see what I can do. We will deal with this, Mr. Tilson. Thank you for raising the point.
Now, there was another. Mr. Del Mastro, you had a point of order.
:
Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm just concerned. It seems there's been a bit of a departure from the precedent that was set when Mr. Mayrand was here. Mr. Mayrand was allowed to exercise
sub judice privilege. He was also not sworn in.
We seemed, on a whim, to change that precedent today. It seems that once again we're establishing a double standard whereby certain witnesses will be held to a certain standard, others will not. Some will be held to a certain expectation of forthrightness, others will not.
We would very much like you to consider that. Certainly if Mr. Mayrand is coming back, I hope he will be held to the same account as we're holding these witnesses to, understanding that that is in very stark contrast to the expectation he was held to the first time he appeared.
I hope that's going to be the case; otherwise I think we're clearly setting up another double standard at this committee, yet another double standard at this committee, and I hope that is not the case.
:
Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.
Your point is of interest. I can indicate to you that the question you raise was dealt with fully at our last two meetings when we dealt with the sub judice convention and why Mr. Mayrand was permitted to not answer certain questions that were before the investigation.
You weren't at those hearings, but if you have a look at them you will be satisfied that I explained to the committee right at the outset that a condition precedent for Mr. Mayrand to appear was that he would not be put in a position to have to answer questions that could potentially prejudice or compromise his investigation. As chair, I agreed to that condition, and that's one of the reasons he did not respond to certain specific questions directly related to the investigation.
As to swearing in, it is a decision of the committee. There was no request for Mr. Mayrand to be sworn in. I didn't see any reason for him, as an officer of Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister, in one of the top responsible positions of the government, to be sworn in. So I did not take that step. It was not an omission; it simply was not viewed to be appropriate.
So that deals with the two points you raised.
:
Order, please. Order, please.
Mr. Wallace, when the chair asks for order—
Mr. Mike Wallace: [Inaudible--Editor]
The Chair: This is not a point of order, sir. You cannot call a point of order just to hear yourself talk.
Mr. Mike Wallace: [Inaudible--Editor]
The Chair: Order, please, Mr. Wallace.
Mr. Hubbard, I really believe we have to have one person talking at once.
I want to remind honourable members that when the chair calls for order, it's just like in the House when the Speaker rises. Then you have to sit down in your place and stop speaking and listen to the chair of the proceedings. In the House, it's the Speaker. In a committee, it is the chair.
I am speaking, yet you are now trying to speak. The poor translators back there are having difficulty with three people, as Mr. Goodyear and Mr. Wallace are speaking while I'm speaking, and trying to figure out how to keep a proper transcript. Members ought to understand this. In aboriginal communities, they have what's called a talking stick. It means that unless you have the talking stick in your hand, you shall not speak; you have to have it.
But Mr. Wallace, you're talking when you don't have the floor. Your point of order was not a point of order; you wanted to have more debate and more argument. It was not a procedural question.
Some hon. members: [Inaudible--Editor]
The Chair: Order, order.
Mr. Wallace, when I say “order”, you really have to listen.
Order, please.
Now, Mr. Wallace has maybe not given all of the facts. I would like to at least remind the committee that in addition to the witnesses we had scheduled, the debate on the motion by Mr. Scott Reid also has to take place.
And because the candidate for Vancouver East and the official agent have not appeared, which I just found out about at 12:30 this afternoon, I spoke with the clerk and asked if we could, at their request—as they had suggested this to me—deal with the budget for our committee, because to reimburse the expenses of our witnesses we actually need to pass a budget. The copies are available, and I want to deal with this too.
The job of a chair is to try to utilize the time as efficiently as possible, but when summonses are issued and people do not respect the summonses, there is nothing I can do. I can tell you that I'm fearful that tomorrow morning, when four witnesses are scheduled from four different ridings for the morning session.... All of them had to be summonsed, but I have no indication whatsoever whether or not they will respect that summons. I do not have the authority to enforce it.
We may very well find ourselves having to suspend the proceedings until the afternoon and our afternoon witnesses. But then the committee will have to determine what action it's prepared to take with regard to those who do not respect Parliament, do not respect the committee, and do not respect a summons issued and served, which has the same weight as a summons from a court of law; it has the same weight.
So I would like to move on now. One half-hour of our time has been taken up on this. It's unfortunate, but the members have rights.
I ask members respectfully, please don't misuse the witnesses' time and your colleagues' time by raising matters that could maybe be raised at the end of the meeting or before we start the meeting. Maybe discuss it with your own colleagues to see whether or not it really is a good thing to raise; it might be helpful to all interested parties.
Mr. Martelli, you have been sworn in, sir. I know you are here voluntarily--no summons. I know you have been a candidate, and in our brief chat I told you I very much respect that you offered yourself for public office. It is very important.
I'm going to move on to questions from the committee members. We'll probably do a couple of rounds, and then at the end we will offer you an opportunity, if you wish, to make a few remarks that you feel would be helpful to the committee.
:
No, no. Mr. Goodyear, first of all, I didn't recognize you. You don't have the floor.
I can tell you that part of the chair's responsibilities--
Mr. Gary Goodyear: This is a farce.
The Chair: Well, I know you want to paint it that way.
Mr. Gary Goodyear: We're not painting it that way.
The Chair: Mr. Goodyear, please. None of the witnesses we communicated with were advised that they would be required to provide, or offered, an opening statement.
An hon. member: Were they advised?
The Chair: That is a decision of the committee. I couldn't tell them one way or another.
An hon. member: Well, if they didn't know and they weren't told.... These gentlemen have legal counsel.
The Chair: Order, order.
Thank you, Mr. Martelli, for being here. We appreciate that very much. You seem like an honest, stand-up guy, and I thank you for being so frank with us.
Mr. Martelli, you said on CBC TV—you were interviewed on the national news, in fact—“Don't forget, you are frauding the population when you do this,” when they asked you about putting the $14,000 in, taking it out again, and then filing for a 60% rebate on that money as if it were a local campaign expense.
Do you want to expand on that? Do you see that as being fraudulent in practice to claim that it was a local campaign expense when it really wasn't?
:
That's exactly the question we're trying to get at. I appreciate your asking that.
Monsieur Mayrand stated that the transfer of funds from a national party to a campaign and from a campaign back is perfectly legal. What happened to you, sir, is perfectly legal according to Elections Canada. But if I could read you something--I did this this morning--I want to ask you if this is similar to what happened to you.
A lady named Lucy, the bookkeeper for the New Democratic Party of Canada, wrote in an e-mail to an official agent of Libby Davies in British Columbia:
Please find attached an invoice from the federal party. The original will follow by mail. It is our understanding that these radio ads promoted your candidate during the election period. Please forward payment to the election party, the federal party, as soon as possible. The amount should be reported as a candidate expense at the local campaign.
Now, Phyllis, the financial officer for Libby Davies, wrote back on March 30 and said:
This is not our invoice. Mindful about the extended campaign and limited budget, we were only able to take out a few ethnic ads, all coordinated through Stanley Tsao, the NDP B.C. Chinese media. A cheque of $1,500 for our portion was forwarded to the Canadian NDP party in cash. Please check, because this really, really is bad for our ceiling.
The very next day the bookkeeper for the national NDP party wrote back and said:
Hi, Phyllis, we are told by communication folks in B.C. that these were radio ads with the candidate's personal tag at the end, therefore, a local expense to be reported under the candidate's expense ceiling regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes you are being billed $2,612. The good news is that the federal party will transfer in $2,600 to the riding association's account. We hope you are able to squeeze this under the ceiling. Some expenses are considered election expenses and are not subject to spending limits and we....
Mr. Mayrand has said that transfers of funds in and out are legal. That is what happened to you, sir. The transfer of expenses is not. He admitted that's a difficulty of interpretation before the courts.
Does that sound similar to what happened to you? If it does, sir, why do you think that Elections Canada is not investigating the NDP?
:
I'll answer his question.
To answer your question, sir, if I were to have that $8,000 returned, hey, no problem. I'm sure I could have done a lot better to increase the.... But it wasn't the case, sir. That $8,000 didn't exist in our bank account.
By the way, I was never told that we were going to have radio coverage. I didn't have one day.
:
He called me up one afternoon and said, “Listen, Mr. Martelli, is it okay if we deposit $14,000 in your account?”
Coming back to my story, I asked Benoît what this $14,000 was. “Oh, nothing. Listen, I asked another nine ridings, and you would be the tenth one if you accepted. It's up to you to accept or not.”
As I was saying before, I asked Benoît if there was any comeback to this. He said, “Oh, everything's legit, nothing to worry.” So I told him, “Okay, go ahead with it if there's nothing to worry.”
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martelli, there's no point in getting upset about the people from the party in power. You need to know that for seven months, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, they put a spanner in the works to make sure that you would be unable to talk about your circumstances before parliamentarians. That is why the matter ended up with the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Moreover, the former Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Mr. Goodyear, is here. You get the idea about their strategy for preventing things from moving forward, and for putting a spanner in the works.
The transfer of invoices is the big problem. That is entirely what this is about. You are right: 15 political parties ran candidates in the last election and only one of them is being investigated by Elections Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada. You are completely right. When it goes to siphon off from elsewhere... Even Mr. Del Mastro's lie when he said that you had not received 10% of the votes, shows how they operate, which is to draw attention elsewhere.
I would like to know whether, at one time or another, people from the Conservative Party required you to get involved in the infamous $14,000 scheme?
:
And the $8,000 did not go into your account, but into the account of the National Conservative Party.
Mr. Liberato Martelli: Exactly.
Ms. Carole Lavallée: That means that through a simple 24-hour in-and-out from your account by Michel Rivard, the Conservative Party added $8,000 to its nest egg, to its powerful war chest. That's what it means.
Mr. Liberato Martelli: Exactly.
Ms. Carole Lavallée: So this is different from what we saw before. Thus far, what we saw was advertising expenses being "worked". However in this instance, the expenses are something we don't really know anything about.
You are not on the Chief Electoral Officer's list. So what is involved is another system to enable the Conservative Party to make more money through reimbursements from the Chief Electoral Officer from taxpayers' money.
The answer is yes. You can buy signs from supplier one; you can buy brochures from supplier two. You didn't know very much as a candidate, but you can do that. It is legal. It's above board.
Signs and brochures are advertising. The national party can be a supplier of goods or services. So I'm allowed to buy signs from supplier one, brochures from supplier two, and I can buy advertising from supplier three, and supplier three is allowed to be the national party. That's perfectly legitimate. There's nothing wrong with that.
Monsieur Mayrand testified in front of the committee that there is nothing wrong with that. They are just another supplier. That's what has been going on here. Candidates have been buying advertising from a supplier. It just so happens the supplier is the national party. Why? It's cheaper for the national party to buy a regional ad buy than it is for me to buy an ad buy, Mr. Del Mastro to buy an ad buy, and my colleagues to buy all separate ad buys. It's better that we all buy one big ad buy. But I'm allowed to buy ads from the national party, and the national party is allowed to transfer money into my campaign. It's above board and it's legal.
What baffles me, sir, is what you're doing here, the relevance of your testimony. All of what I've said is legal, it has all been backed up by Monsieur Mayrand in front of the committee, it's all above board, and yet you're here and you're not part of this regional ad buy at all. You did not participate in the regional ad buy.
You say the national party sent you $14,000. Well, that may be. They're allowed to do that. They are allowed to do so.
The point I'm making to you is that in fact you're here probably because our adversaries across the table have invited you here because you're a hostile witness. They're using you to deliver their—
:
I'm going to get to my question.
You're also, sir, not a public office-holder and you are not commenting on public office-holders, which is what the mandate of the committee is. This is the point that Mr. Del Mastro was bringing up. We're actually outside the mandate of the committee right now when we talk about parties. We're supposed to be linking all this to public office-holders.
You are neither a public office-holder nor have you questioned a public office-holder. It hasn't come up in your testimony. So the fundamental question I have to you is, sir, what are you doing here?
:
I realize you guys are just going around the truth, trying to bypass and not coming straight to the point.
You can laugh, sir, because you guys are going to be crying later on.
One thing I want to tell you, sir, is that if it really was for a national issue, as you said, for advertising, do you think I'd want to use that $14,000 to do some publicity? But I didn't.
Coming to your point, those funny pens and pencils that you guys give out, I didn't have a budget for that. The only brochures I did, I paid for out of my pocket. I printed them at home with a printer, black and white. If we did have money, I think it would have gone a lot further than that.
But the issue here is that you guys are trying to hide that you know your days are counted.
Thank you, Mr. Martelli, for your very clear and concise testimony. I assure you, don't be deterred by the smokescreen these guys are throwing up. Your moral compass is operating a lot better than the moral sextant that guides the Conservative Party of Canada, believe me. You seem to know the difference between right and wrong. To you, it strikes you as wrong to take $14,000 and pretend it was a local expense when in fact it was part of the national campaign's expense.
No amount of bafflegab is going to take the stink off what the Conservative Party has done in this election financing scheme. A stand-up guy like you is here to add some clarity to this, and I for one appreciate you being here and not falling for this kind of mischief that we're seeing over here.
This is the kind of thing that turns people off politics, Mr. Martelli, and I wouldn't blame you if you feel a little bit jaded after your experience as well.
:
The only thing I can say in my testimony here today is that I have nothing to hide, and I have nothing to lose compared to my counterparts here.
I'm sorry to say this, but you know, Mr. Harper is very strong. He comes to Quebec every 24th of June--he doesn't come before that--to say, hey, let's go for la fête nationale, bonne fête Québec. In general, he shows up only for special occasions. I remember that three other ridings asked him to come, and they were denied. There was me in Bourassa, Mr. Ercolano Pingiotti in St. Leonard, and another gentleman in Maisonneuve, who asked to have him come. He wasn't interested in coming.
As I said before, when I was tossed out I took my pill. I didn't say anything. I said, this is the way it's run and it's okay. I wouldn't have bothered to be here. But to get me involved in some of their schemes that they want to wash their hands of and pretend they didn't know about it or I didn't get 14.8%, I find that a bit low from you guys. I thought you would have done your homework, but that's not the case. You had your time to talk, and now it's my time.
The only thing I can say is that I'm very disappointed with the Conservative government. Laugh, sir--I appreciate that you laugh. It's really going to do you good, because you aren't going to be laughing for very long.
First of all, Mr. Martelli, you should be commended for getting nearly 16% in an election, because not only does it appear that you had no support whatsoever; you were basically paying for most of your efforts through your own time and resources.
Mr. Liberato Martelli: Exactly.
Hon. Charles Hubbard: Were you surprised today to hear Mr. Del Mastro say that in terms of the city of Montreal you were not part of the regional so-called buy? In other words, the Conservative Party apparently did not support your candidacy in Montreal North.
:
Anyway, I thank you for the time and I thank the witness for coming.
Based particularly on the questioning by Mr. Lemieux about what was done being completely legal, the 15% that the candidate got obviously was not as a result of their efforts, with three people running the campaign and no money. It obviously was the national campaign that drove the dollars, the quality of the leadership we have in the current Prime Minister, Prime Minister Harper.
There was a question about cabinet ministers coming to visit. Well, of course we weren't in government at that point. Thank God we are now; we have cabinet ministers to visit ridings now, but we didn't have them previously. It was time for a change, and thank God, Canadians across the country found change, and we now have a Conservative government here.
The individual who has been the witness today has issues, obviously, that he wanted to bring forward on his own, with the indulgence, the acceptance, and the invitation of the opposition members. It was clear that the issue of supporting local candidates from a national party is legal. We've had indications from other parties that did it in the last campaign.
The individual is not a public office-holder, which is what this motion deals with—public office-holders. So we appreciate his making the fine effort to come from Montreal, but it really had no relevance here today. In fact, we would have gotten a lot more relevancy, Mr. Chair, if we had been informed that there were going to be openings this afternoon for a witness who could have helped us in questioning, and that is the director of the national campaign for the Conservative Party of Canada.
I clearly indicated this morning that we had an opportunity to see that individual. It was not clear to me that we would have only one witness here this afternoon. It is partly my fault. When I saw that there were only three, I should have pressed the issue: if we could have five in the morning, why couldn't we have four in the afternoon?
My point is this. If we were going to do this in a non-partisan manner, which is highly unlikely, but if we were, it would have been nice if you as chair had indicated that the committee would not see this individual in the morning, but that there might be some time in the afternoon, because we had set two hours aside for one person. It was an interesting discussion, but we had room for others.
In order for this committee to operate more as a parliamentary committee, as it has—I've sat on this committee since we began this Parliament in the spring of 2006, and we have studied a number of issues in a very parliamentary fashion—I think it would have been appropriate for us to do that.
I thank the witness for coming. I think the issues.... He needs to be aware, as do all candidates, that he has a responsibility to understand what their role is. We are asking at present for an interpretation of the rules that were in place at the time of the election.
We believe we are right, that there's nothing wrong with what we did. We have been very transparent, open, and public about it from the beginning and are not, as the NDP individual here today has indicated, trying to hide something. It is absolutely the opposite. We've been clear in the press, clear in the House of Commons, clear as we find out an interpretation of our view of what was in place at the time of the election.
Many candidates may not know the rules. I don't blame you for that, because there are a lot of rules to understand. When there's a campaign of only three people in a riding, with no money, it's very difficult to be worrying about those particular issues.
That's not the case in my particular riding. I happen to be quite aware. I've been a campaign manager; I've been involved with a number of campaigns both federally and provincially. So I'm fairly well versed on the issues we face everyday, which may not have been your case.
But in fact the witness did not offer anything new or add to the debate today, didn't further the discussion beyond where it was. We could have had the director of the campaign for the Conservative Party of Canada here this afternoon and we could have had some real quality questions asked and answered. I'm sorry we missed that opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Unfortunately, the five minutes have expired.
Mr. Martelli, I don't think there was anything in there for you, but there certainly were some statements.
For the benefit of the committee, you may know that prior to calling this morning's meeting to order, I went to speak with Mr. Finley at the witness table and told him, indeed, and reaffirmed to him what I had said in the memo I had the clerk send to him on Friday, that we were booked solid in the morning and couldn't hear him. I said that we might be able to have him this afternoon, and he said no, that he wanted to appear this morning. That was not possible. I told him also that he was summonsed for Wednesday. But in the letter I did confirm to him that he could come on Thursday, because I didn't think we wouldn't have a full day on Thursday, based on what I was anticipating.
So there's no question that Mr. Finley has been summonsed. We do very much want to hear from him. He has been summonsed for Wednesday. Hopefully, he will appear; but if not on Wednesday, I hope he will contact us and take up our offer to appear sometime on Thursday, so that we can hear from this very important witness. I think members would agree with this.
Now, with regard to the issue of public office-holders, honourable members, it has come up that we can only talk about public office-holders. The motion doesn't say that we can only deal with public office-holders. Be very careful: it is about the ethical conduct of public office-holders. And to understand the ethical conduct of public officers, you must understand the event in which they are implicated, which may give rise to an ethical undertaking to either report, recuse, or to take some other action on behalf of that public office-holder vis-à-vis either the 2006 guidelines of the Prime Minister or, since they were subsequently withdrawn and replaced by them, the amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act.
This is very complicated. It has to do with what triggers actions on behalf of public office-holders, actions that are of an ethical manner relating to their private interest. The private interest has to do with their participation in an election campaign, for which they filed an election expenses return after they became public office-holders. There are allegations that these were improperly filed, and there are some further allegations that there may be some consequences. I don't want to go there.
The reason that we have to look at the event is to determine and understand what happened and whether someone should have known or ought to have known—
:
I understand that, but Mr. Lemieux raised this issue about this witness, that he should not have been here, questioning why he is here. And I'm trying to explain that Mr. Martelli is here, and accepted being here without summons, to help us understand what happened.
Now, finally, I am going to ask Mr. Martelli if he has any final comment to make before he's excused, and then I'm going to take a 10-minute break and we will come back; and then we're going to deal with the motion of Mr. Reid concerning the independent investigation of Elections Canada. And I would also like to deal with the budget. That's what I propose.
Now, before we go to Mr. Martelli for his final comment, if any, Mr. Del Mastro, could you please state the basis for your point of order?
:
Yes, it's procedural, Mr. Chair. And I was patient and did listen to your statement. I ask that you please be patient and listen to this. They are your words, Mr. Chair, from 3:45 on June 19. I read the first part. I'd like to continue that:
We are not authorized—it's not within our mandate—to determine any ethical standards of any party. This has to do only with public office-holders and their duties with regard to ethical standards, which are set by the Prime Minister and are also included in the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, which is included in the Standing Orders. We are not—and I hope everyone understands that—in a position under our mandate or the motion before us, not authorized whatsoever, to opine on a political party and its activities. That is not included in this discussion. The only way it could ever be considered is if the committee specifically wanted to do that, but it does not.
We should not be talking about political parties and what they did. We should be talking about the persons, as outlined in my ruling, named in the findings of Elections Canada, who were involved in certain activities that may have given rise to actions under the standards of ethics.
We have to be very careful. I know it's more exciting to talk about elections and parties and all these other things, but we need to keep it to the mandate and to the motions, and political parties are not going to be examined, by themselves, by this committee. We're not authorized to do that. We're looking at individuals covered under the codes and under the ethical standards expected of public office-holders.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Chair, I humbly request that you stand by these high words and, please, govern the committee according to them. That's it.
Now, what we heard today had nothing to do with your words at 3:45, June 19, 2008, which were set forth to govern this committee. Now, if that has changed--and judging by what you just said a few minutes ago, it's changed again—I'd like some clarification on that, because very clearly, the motion that was set forth was not set forth for this purpose—what we have heard this afternoon—absolutely not, and you made it very clear that it was not the intent of that motion.
:
I stand by those, Mr. Del Mastro, because this is not a matter in which we're dealing with the ethical activities of a party. We are dealing with the ethical conduct of public office-holders. But if you look, Mr. Del Mastro—and I know you're not a member of the committee and you weren't there—when I made a ruling on the admissibility of this motion to be debated in the first instance, I laid out in some detail, first of all, the principle that our mandate only includes public office-holders. But secondly, this event being the transfer of money, the transfer, as we all know, is irrelevant to everything. It's totally permitted. It is the attribution or the accounting for the expenses. That is the issue. But you cannot separate that process that a public office-holder or other candidates...because, as a group, none were public office-holders at the time, but they participated in an event that triggered a filing of returns.
The link to the committee is that—and understand the subtlety; this a very fine line, I understand—after six ministers and four parliamentary secretaries became public office-holders, after they were put into those positions, they filed final election expenses returns pursuant to the Canada Elections Act, they have been challenged by the Chief Electoral Officer, and there are other proceedings, etc. That is the event. That is the point at which public office-holders now may have to have made either a reporting to the Ethics Commissioner or to the Prime Minister. There may have been recusal requirements. I don't know that yet. We'll have witnesses to help us understand what should have triggered what. But we will have expert witnesses. And members will know that some of the expert witnesses with regard to violations under the Canada Elections Act have indicated clearly that criminal charges are possible. That is serious; I take it seriously. And let's not start splitting hairs. We're talking ultimately about the guidelines related to public office-holders.
That's enough of this.
Mr. Martelli, if you have any final words, now is your turn.
:
I would like to thank you all for accepting me here today to give my side of the story.
When I was convinced to come here, I was talking to a friend of mine. I was surprised that Monsieur Jean Landry wasn't asked to come to this commission too. But that's the committee, sir.
As I said, I'd like to thank the gentlemen here who are being nice. The other gentlemen here...as I said, you're talking about transparency, but that hasn't been much of the case. But hey, you guys have to live with that decision, not me.
Thank you.
:
In fairness, it's not a point of order. I just want to ask a question about the witness scheduling.
Given that we've had two witnesses this morning who did not participate in regional buys, and then of course we have this gentleman here who we could argue was relevant or not, I'm just wondering if the chair would consider the committee reviewing the witness list to see if there are other witnesses who perhaps also would not be relevant, and reconsider allowing some of the Conservative witnesses who are fully relevant to this matter.
I don't want to move a motion, because I don't want to fool you now that I have the floor. I could easily move a motion, Mr. Chair, but I'm appealing to your common sense and asking you. I think it would be appropriate for the committee to revisit the witness list with the intent to eliminate witnesses who are not relevant to the proceedings and to add the Conservative list of witnesses, who are in fact, in my humble opinion, relevant.
I would ask the chair for that, please.
:
First of all, with regard to participation in the media buy being a criterion for being a witness, I'm not sure that was ever set up. We do know that each of the parties was invited to submit proposed witnesses. The witness list was vetted and was approved by the committee.
I think, Mr. Goodyear, you will be aware that during the June hearings where we dealt with this motion that's before us today there were two amendments. One amendment was that we would consider also persons from other parties. That was the gist of one of the amendments or subamendments. The other one was that the committee would also entertain activities in election years prior to 2006. As you know, the committee defeated and rejected both of those, and it's one of the reasons we're now here faced with the motion to deal strictly with Conservative candidates only, with regard to the 2006 election only.
The committee proposed its witnesses; I did not vet them. But I think if there is going to be a change, if there are any changes that members want to propose with regard to witnesses or to future witnesses, those will have to be handled by the committee by giving a notice of motion, I believe.
Colleagues, I indicated to you at the last meeting that I would come forward with a budget. I want to deal with that right now. I think it's fairly straightforward. I don't want to give any personal details, but we have a couple of witnesses who would like prompt reimbursement of the expenses they incurred to appear before us, and they would like to leave this account with us today. It can't be processed without a budget.
Circulated before you is a best-effort budget that I had asked the clerks to come forward with, based on our best expectation of witnesses who would appear and would have travel costs.
The total travel expenses were estimated at approximately $39,900. To the extent that the committee decides to have any further meetings with further witnesses, a further budget would have to be submitted to the committee for its approval.
Unless there are any questions, I would like to simply ask the committee this: does the committee approve the budget as circulated?
Do you have a question, Mr. Del Mastro? Okay, and then it's Mr. Tilson and Mr. Wallace.
Mr. Del Mastro, please.
I fundamentally disagree with you on the public office-holder piece. You ruled me out of order about a thousand times when I tried to go over what a public-officer holder was during the last.... But it's in the motion.
We have people who have come just today, and I think we should reimburse the people who came today. First of all, I think this budget should have been passed at the last set of meetings before you invited people, but it's here today, so I'm willing to support a budget for this.
Even though half the witnesses—and I've counted up—were not involved in the regional ad buy, I would like to know, of the witnesses who are listed here, because you must have an idea who they are, how many actually were involved in the regional ad buy. If they weren't involved in the regional ad buy—and whether you agree or disagree with this, I don't care—they really should not be witnesses. They're wasting our time and, in this case, public tax money. I don't mind inviting people who have been involved in the 2006 election and involved in the regional ad buy, but concerning others who were not, I think we should revisit the list and disqualify those candidates.
My question to you, sir, is do you know, of the people here—what is it, about 20 people here?—whether all 20 were involved in the regional ad buy?
I take a slightly different view from that of my colleagues. It is not the witnesses' fault that they have been subpoenaed, nor is it the witnesses' fault that the Liberal Party has decided to use a parliamentary committee for their political gain. So I will be supporting that the witnesses be reimbursed. Perhaps we could put forward a motion later that this budget be reimbursed by the Liberal Party.
That said, I will be supporting this budget because it's not the witnesses' fault that they're being used in this game.
On a separate note, it's why I was going to suggest to you, when we were talking earlier, that you allow me to move the motion as to whether we'd revisit the list, because it might change the budget.
All of that said, I don't think it's the witnesses who should be punished because of this game, because of what's going on here. So I will be supporting the budget.
Thank you.
I want to state my concerns. I understand the costs associated with bringing witnesses in front of the committee, but if they really have no relevance here, I think it's an unfair burden on the taxpayers in terms of paying their travel expenses and the very real cost of this committee operating. We have a lot of people on duty when this committee sits.
For example, this morning Louise O'Sullivan came and wasn't really here to answer questions. She just had a message to deliver: “I had nothing to do with this.” That was it, but we paid for that. We all sat here, time ticked on, and this cost Canadian taxpayers money.
As for Ann Julie Fortier, we're looking at 2006 and she was from 2004. What are you guys thinking? She was here and didn't have much to offer.
Then of course we had our witness Mr. Martelli just after lunch, who was not part of the regional ad buy at all. He's not even on the list Monsieur LeBlanc brought up, but we're paying for him to be here. We've sat here all afternoon talking to a witness who was not relevant to the mandate of the committee, and we're asking taxpayers to pay for this.
So I'm very much in favour of what Mr. Wallace said. If the witnesses are in fact relevant to the mandate of this committee, we should absolutely pay for them, as we do with every other witness. But if we're just hauling in every Tom, Dick, and Harry because that's what the majority over there want, I think Canadians should know they're paying for that. They're paying for this little vendetta of the opposition to pull in witnesses who are not relevant.
It's a democracy. It's the tyranny of the majority, and you are the majority. That was stated by the Speaker of the House. I have to go through the chair, of course, so please pass on to Monsieur Nadeau that it was stated by the Speaker of the House himself that there is a tyranny of the majority on committees and it's leading to anarchy. Now it's leading to taxpayers paying for witnesses who are not necessarily relevant to the mandate of this committee, to the investigation, or to the hearings we have under way right now.
Thank you for your patience, Chair.
:
Thank you, colleagues. That disposes of that item.
At the last meeting of the committee in July, the committee adjourned, but there was one item left. It was the motion of Mr. Scott Reid, member of Parliament, which reads as follows:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and in reference to the current study under way by this committee, that the Committee request that the Chief Electoral Officer appoint an independent investigator to review the allegations of a leak of a planned search of Conservative Party headquarters, and that this investigation include all individuals who were privy to information about the search before the search occurred.
That is the motion before us, moved by Mr. Reid. We had planned to have the debate and vote on it at our last meeting. Unfortunately the committee chose to adjourn, so we are resuming debate on the motion from Mr. Scott Reid, as per the notice of meeting before you.
On debate we have Mr. Del Mastro, Mr. Tilson, and Madame Lavallée.
:
Mr. Chairman, from listening to Mr. Mayrand's evidence, we're not too sure how officials from the Liberal Party arrived there. He didn't seem to know that. Why were they there at all? Whether it's instantaneous or whether it was two hours, why were they there at all? Why was the media there at all?
Naturally—and I'm thinking politically—I asked the question, which got quite a chuckle from the opposition, about Mr. Mayrand at Elections Canada having the Conservative Party's election plans for the next election. He says it's safe under lock and key. Why did they need to seize that material? Why did they need to seize everything? Why was at least one political party there at all? What did that have to do with it? How did they find out? Who told them? The same goes with the media.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to quote an article from the Globe and Mail. I took this out quite a while ago and I don't have the date of it. It's written by Robin Sears, who, when Mr. Rae was the Premier of Ontario, was his chief of staff. He's a former NDP campaign director.
There's one paragraph in which he addressed this issue. He said:
Elections Canada's very un-Canadian behaviour is unacceptable in a democracy. Without a better argument and evidence, Elections Canada will lose the legal battle, and then we will all pay the cost politically. The bad blood caused by its storm-trooper tactics has infected the political system. Many Liberals and New Democrats are horrified by all this. They know it could be their turn next.
What caused all this? Why did unauthorized people know about it? What else did they know? Were there other things that they knew? I think the motion by Mr. Reid is appropriate.
Of course, Mr. Mayrand doesn't know the answers to these things; we're going to have to assume they're okay. Well, maybe they're okay, but maybe they're not okay. Quite frankly, I don't feel too comfortable that the Conservative Party's elections plans are under lock and key, particularly after what's been going on and particularly when he doesn't know how these people arrived at his office.
Mr. Chairman, on the proposal that there be an independent investigator, I don't really think Mr. Mayrand, when that question was posed to him—and someone could correct me, but I'm fairly certain one of the members of the committee posed it to him, though I can't recall—would have any strong objections to it. If we're going to do our job on this thing, that's an issue.
I would think this particular issue doesn't just affect what has happened to the Conservative Party. As Mr. Sears said, if we're going to allow Elections Canada to do this, it could happen to any one of you people in the near future. You should all be worried about that. Maybe Elections Canada didn't do anything wrong, but it surely is left up in the air: maybe they did. Given the very fact that it says we think maybe they did do something wrong, we should have some independent person to say that they did something wrong and let's fix it, or that they didn't do anything wrong.
All I can tell you is that if Mr. Sears is correct, then all of you in the opposition should be as worried as we are about how this happened.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of independent inquiries. We also agree with the fact that an independent investigator should meet all of the witnesses concerned in a particular matter. We are also in favour of public reviews. Indeed, we are involved in such an exercise today.
While the Conservatives are playacting as offended virgins in this internal investigation being conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer of their own government, their own Prime Minister on the sly, with his left hand, double quick, conducted two internal investigations—not one, but two—that I would describe as idiotic.
The first had to do with the Maxime Bernier affair, at the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Minister of Foreign Affairs left documents at the home of his girlfriend. An internal investigation was carried out, and no one even met his girlfriend! Some internal investigation!
And I won't even talk about the statement made by Barack Obama's adviser, which was repeated by another of the Prime Minister's advisers, about Obama's intention to do away with NAFTA.
So two idiotic internal investigations yielded nothing because none of the right people were even met. Nothing was done.
At the moment, there are five Conservative Party representatives here with us to lecture us, to speak from on high to an important and respectable institution. Furthermore, everyone in opposition has reiterated its respect for Elections Canada and its Chief, except this party.
In short, they are in the process of playing the offended virgins to Elections Canada, which is investigating a matter, when all is said and done, which does not have a national, coast to coast, dimension, but which simply concerns the ego of a number of Conservatives. They're in the process of doing a number on us, emphasizing that it is absolutely essential for an independent investigator to conduct an investigation to determine who said what. In any event, the whole thing is nothing but gossip.
That said, it is clear for the time being that the Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion moved by Scott Reid. Furthermore, I'm surprised that it is even possible to discuss a motion moved by someone who is not present. However, if you feel that the rules are being followed, we can proceed to a vote. We will vote against it.
When this government, the Prime Minister, has appointed an independent investigator to conduct a sensible inquiry into the Maxime Bernier affair and the affair concerning the statement made by one of Barack Obama's advisers about NAFTA, we might perhaps be prepared to review our position and then we might be willing to look at what could be done with such a proposal.
A voice: There is also the Cadman affair.
Ms. Carole Lavallée: Ah, I had forgotten to mention the Cadman affair. Thank you.
:
Let me proceed with one other point then, and I will give the chair and the clerks leeway that the answers to these questions are in fact in that document. That's yet to be seen.
If members recall, Monsieur Mayrand said that in his investigation of the leak he spoke to a few people.
He spoke to a few people. He did not have records of it. That's not an investigation. That is simply asking a few of your buddies and not putting the metal to the fire, so to speak.
I think this is very serious business, and it should be looked into. And whoever made the leak, if in fact there was a leak, should be brought to account.
It was also mentioned by Monsieur Mayrand--and I can't quote him, but his quote is in the minutes--that he had significant concerns about the fact that the investigation undertaken by the commissioner, who invited the RCMP and apparently, allegedly, called up his Liberal buddies and said to come on over, we're going to do.... Mr. Mayrand expressed concern that it happened the day before these people were going to be questioned and disposed. So I think Mr. Mayrand himself expressed the need to look into this further.
The last point I would like to make is that it interests me significantly that between then and now Elections Canada has found a way to allow the Liberal leadership candidates to defer their repayment of their illegal loans. I just think there's too much going on here at Elections Canada to avoid any kind of investigation into this process. I had hoped the motion would have been expanded. I won't do that, but I absolutely feel that members here should vote for a proper investigation. If there was no leak, I'm sure members opposite will be really happy. If there was a leak--well, guess what?--you should be happy about that too.
That's my point, Mr. Chair. I will be supporting the motion.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to pick up where my colleague left off on some of the testimony of Mr. Mayrand.
When Mr. Poilievre was here, he mentioned an email that Monsieur Mayrand had prepared on April 18 discussing the subject of a leak. He mentioned the word “leak” seven times, which indicated a high level of concern. In other words, Monsieur Mayrand was concerned that the impartiality of Elections Canada was being affected by the leak of their visit to Conservative headquarters. He was concerned and didn't want Elections Canada to be affected by that.
Monsieur Mayrand was asked about the internal review that was conducted, and he said it was conducted by people responsible for the various programs in the organization. So it sounded like it was quite a large internal review. Monsieur Poilievre said, “What are their names”? Monsieur Mayrand said, “It was mainly me.” But he did say that also participating were his director of communications and the commissioner's office. So there were two other people--a group of three.
Monsieur Poilievre went on to ask who knew about the event that was about to transpire--this visit to the Conservative Party headquarters. Monsieur Mayrand said it was him, the deputy chief electoral officer, and the director of communications. Of course, Monsieur Poilievre said, “So you all investigated each other on where this leak might have come from.”
Of course, there lies the difficulty. We have Elections Canada conducting an internal review, and the three people who were involved are conducting an internal investigation on themselves as to whether there was a leak or not. Monsieur Mayrand is concerned about the whole issue of the leak and whether or not it will tarnish the reputation of Elections Canada.
I just want to finish by quoting Monsieur Mayrand again. He said, “When allegations are made, put in written form, and put before the proper authorities, I will welcome an investigation into this matter.” So Monsieur Mayrand, the elections officer, has said that when this allegation is made and delivered to him in written form he will gladly welcome this investigation into the matter. He said, “We didn't see any cause to take further steps or carry out a formal investigation into the matter” at the time because it was mostly noise in the media. That's what he was saying in the sentence before that.
So we have an opportunity here as a committee to help Elections Canada. Monsieur Mayrand would welcome an investigation, and of course it can't be internal by the people who possessed the knowledge as to whether or not they leaked it themselves. That doesn't pass any ethical standard. It has to be done by an independent investigator. This only makes sense.
We have Monsieur Mayrand's testimony that he would welcome such an investigation. But I think Canadians would welcome this investigation as well, because I think Canadians are questioning what happened. How is it that the Liberal cameramen were there on the scene at the time? How did that happen? It likely was not by coincidence. Let's have an investigation and find out exactly how that happened.
So I think this motion from Mr. Reid is very appropriate. Just reading Monsieur Mayrand's words, he himself welcomes an investigation into the matter. I think this committee should ask that an investigation be done to protect the integrity of Elections Canada. It's essential, and I don't know why any opposition member would vote against that. What is there to hide? I suppose that is the question.
So I encourage my colleagues, particularly my opposition colleagues, to vote in favour of this motion. I think it's important, and Monsieur Mayrand himself--as Canadians have seen the unfolding of this internal investigation and Monsieur Mayrand's comments regarding a more formal investigation--would be happy to conduct it. Let's vote in favour of this motion.
Thank you, Chair.
:
As I understand the motion, all of the witnesses for whom notice has been given and for whom members have been given the information with regard to their calendarization for our meetings were already approved by the committee.
With regard to relevance, I think we've dealt with it. All of the witnesses are either participants in the media buy.... One candidate and his OA refused to participate, and the rest are media buy personnel or Conservative Party officials or representatives or are from Elections Canada or the public prosecutor's office. Those people are all clearly relevant.
I suggest to you respectfully, Mr. Goodyear, that to review the current list would probably not result in any changes, simply because they are all relevant on their face.
With regard to the second part of your proposed motion, about any future witnesses, that is an agenda item for us of which you've been given notice for Thursday, and we should deal with it then.
:
Okay, thank you. I have heard the motion.
Mr. Goodyear, as I indicated to you, all of the witnesses presently on our notice list have been approved by the committee. We have an item to consider future witnesses, and to have a debate and a vote on something that the members have already voted on would be improper.
Accordingly, I'm going to rule the motion out of order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: I challenge your ruling.
The Chair: The chair has been challenged. That has to be put to a vote immediately. I would like to ask the clerk to please call the roll.
An hon. member: [Inaudible--Editor]
The Chair: No, no, I'm sorry. Mr. LeBlanc answered the question that Madame Lavallée needed some time to deal with.
Some hon. members: [Inaudible--Editor]
The Chair: Order, order!
The decision of the chair that the motion is out of order has been challenged. It's not debatable. I must put the question now. The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll.
(Ruling of the chair sustained [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The orders of the day, the witnesses, and the motion by Mr. Reid have all been discharged. There's no other business before the committee at this time.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Therefore, we are adjourned.