Political Financing   the Elections Canada accusations “an administrative dispute”. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that the Conservatives violated Elections Canada's rules?

Political Financing  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Federal Court of Appeal eviscerated the flimsy shield that the government has been using to try to justify the in and out scheme and the illegal rebates Conservatives tried to swindle out of taxpayers. Conservatives call it an administrative dispute

Political Financing  Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party continues to be engaged in this five-year long administrative dispute. One court has ruled in favour of the Conservative Party and another has done otherwise. This is the normal back and forth that one can expect in a five-year long dispute

Political Financing  Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the typical back and forth that we could expect from a five-year-long administrative dispute of this kind. Conservative candidates spent Conservative funds on Conservative advertising. The national party did, indeed

Political Financing  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it appears the member is referring to a five-year-long administrative dispute and the ongoing back and forth that has flowed out of that dispute. Of course, Conservative candidates did spend Conservative funds on Conservative advertising

Political Financing  Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister that the scheme is not an administrative dispute. It was a well-administered fraud. It is not an accounting disagreement. It was a deliberate attempt to break the law

Political Financing  Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's overheated rhetoric and mistaken facts notwithstanding, I would simply remind him that we are talking about a five-year-old administrative dispute. We continue to take our case forward, because Conservative candidates spent Conservative funds

Political Financing  Mr. Speaker, if it is an administrative dispute, I guess all four of them will go to an administrative prison. That is how it looks. With respect to what we have seen over the last few days, it is really quite remarkable. There are cabinet ministers in the front two rows

Political Financing   the Prime Minister continue to claim that this a simple administrative dispute, when the Chief Electoral Officer, the elections commissioner, the director of public prosecutions and former Conservative candidates and MPs all maintain that the party deliberately—

Business of Supply   that this is an administrative dispute, an accounting misunderstanding. We could use that same argument to say that the likes of Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones were caught up in an accounting disagreement. The whole Enron affair in the United States was nothing more than an accounting dispute, a financial

Business of Supply   is simply an administrative dispute. They seem to be saying that they are disliked by the CEOC, that all of the other parties did the same thing and that, really, it is unfair that the CEOC is picking on the Conservative Party. They would even have us believe that the CEOC's actions

Business of Supply   is this: If the Conservative Party believes this is just an administrative dispute, why has it not co-operated fully with Parliament, with its committees, with Elections Canada and the prosecutor to make sure that all of the facts are there so that we can resolve this issue and get on with the business

Business of Supply   result in a $5,000 fine, five years in prison, or both. This in and out scheme shows the Conservatives for what they truly are. They can talk all they like about an administrative dispute between their party and Elections Canada, but the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously sided

Political Financing  Mr. Speaker, this is not an administrative dispute. Four Conservatives are charged with election fraud but a fifth person has been named in a sworn affidavit as the secretary of the Conservative fund when this election scam was concocted. His name is Nigel Wright. He

Business of Supply   action plan on March 22. As for the matter currently before the courts, we will appeal the decision made recently by the Federal Court of Appeal. As the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary have recently said in this House, this is an administrative dispute with Elections