Debates of April 29th, 2008

Rick Norlock Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are realizing that the Liberals are just too risky on the economy. While Canadians face increasing gas prices, the Liberal leader is promoting his plan for the economy, a new and massive increase in gasoline taxes.

This new tax, in addition to other Liberal promises, would mean that under a Liberal government the GST could increase to 12%, whereas our government reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. Only the party opposite would view giving Canadians their hard-earned money back as a bad thing. The Liberals' reckless spending promises would plunge Canada at least $62.5 billion deeper into debt.

Today taxes are at their lowest level in 50 years, unemployment is at the lowest level in 33 years, and Canada's debt burden is at the lowest level since the 1970s. The Liberal leader and his party would risk all of this success.

Under the leadership of this Prime Minister and Finance Minister, we are balancing the budget, reducing debt and lowering taxes for all Canadians.

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has followed all the laws. In fact, the Conservative Party has used practices, as has been demonstrated in this House, that have been used for years, allowed by Elections Canada, and used by every single party.

In fact, it is very interesting, some Liberals went to court recently against Elections Canada. They forced Elections Canada to allow the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars to their leadership candidates, of which the deputy leader was a beneficiary.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has the floor.

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, they did not raid my headquarters nor the headquarters of the member for Toronto Centre.

The election spending limits are in place for a good reason: to create a level playing field for all the parties and make sure elections are fair.

Why does the Prime Minister think he can ignore the rules? Why does he think the Conservative Party can spend a million dollars more than any other party? Does he think he is above the law?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we have obeyed the same laws as the other parties and followed the same practices and the same Elections Canada interpretations for a long time. The Liberals are being just a tad hypocritical, because as I said, some Liberals went to court against Elections Canada to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars for their party. That suit benefited the deputy leader of the Liberal Party.

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, there were no raids on my headquarters, but there were raids on their headquarters.

When Elections Canada raided Conservative Party headquarters, it did so because 16 out of 18 Conservative Party operatives refused to answer any questions. That is why the raid was necessary in the first place.

Can the Prime Minister explain why his party has obstructed Elections Canada at every turn? Can he explain why his government and his party have so little confidence--

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The right hon. Prime Minister.

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Well, Mr. Speaker, if what the hon. member is saying is that it is strange that Elections Canada had one practice for the Conservative Party and one for other parties, we agree.

That is not correct. In fact, the Conservative Party of Canada has never refused any documentation to Elections Canada. In fact, by our own lawsuit we are required to provide that documentation and we believe as a consequence, that raid broke Elections Canada's own rules.

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, caught and cornered, the Conservatives are misleading the House to divert attention from the fact that it is the only party that participated in this electoral laundromat.

The parliamentary secretary attempted to distort a 1997 ruling on blackouts as somehow relevant to this scam. Elections Canada has never told any party to change the content of their ads. It is about fraud, not free speech.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm his reference yesterday to the Somerville exception had nothing to do with spending limits and nothing to do with expenses?

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, it had everything to do with both. So does the collective ad buy that the member participated in.

The member for Beauséjour and a group of New Brunswick Liberals joined in a regional media buy in the 2006 election organized by the national party and then paid for by the national party. In fact, the invoice was never even given to the local candidates. It was given to the national party and local candidates then paid to the party.

Interestingly, while it was seen as a local expense in the ad, he did not book it in his election expenses. Can he explain why not?

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, the government insists on making up facts to mount a defence that does not hold water. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board has forgotten that the Federal Court refused to accept the examples he gave concerning other political parties because the Federal Court felt that those examples had nothing to do with the situation in which the Conservative Party now finds itself.

Why is the government making up facts to try to whitewash an untenable situation?

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my hon. colleague did not deny the facts, as I presented them. In fact, there is more. If he has the opportunity to rise again, I think he should admit that in the past three months, he had to modify the documents he sent to Elections Canada and admit that he himself participated in this collective advertising. Why did he change his position?