Mr. Speaker, I can understand that there is a lot of commotion in here tonight about the Saskatchewan Roughriders winning the Grey Cup. I rise to my feet amidst all that glorious celebration of Canada's oldest professional sport championship and offer salutations to both sides.

I rise to ask a question in the realm of democratic reform. I was fortunate enough to ask a question of the government. However, I was not fortunate enough to really receive an answer.

My question involved questions regarding Mr. Michael Donison and his imprimatur.

I should go back a little. He was one of the star witnesses for the Conservative government when it brought in its new accountability act, the most comprehensive, et cetera, as I have heard the member for Nepean—Carleton go on about the title. In fact, Mr. Donison was a witness at the Bill C-2 hearings who said that the convention fee expenses were totally legal and totally within the confines of the Elections Act.

However, it turns out that over the summer the Conservative Party defied, I guess, the evidence of Mr. Donison and treated convention fees as contributions, as all parties had, and did a sort of volte-face on their original position.

My question, thoroughly put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, is this: will we see the same turnaround with respect to the colouring of the in and out expense aspect done on most Conservative campaigns and totalling some $2 million? Will we see a change in the position in this very important matter? Was it really necessary for the Conservative Party to sue Elections Canada and to put the taxpayers to the expense of defending Elections Canada when it is very clear that Elections Canada did not allow these expenses in the first place?

Much has been made in court filings about other advertising undertaken by other members across the country, but I hasten to add that Elections Canada has not thrown out any other expense accounts except the numerous expense accounts put in by candidates, successful or not, in the Conservative Party who have participated in the in and out affair.

Local candidates had claimed, many of them in defiance of their party leaders, that it was national advertising. In fact, it was. Much of the advertising that took place, and this is according to Mr. Donison, who is now sort of in the embrace of government and who said it would be no real news to a local campaign: it would be “a transfer in and back out, same day...as agreed”. He said that there would be “no net cost”. It is very close in scheme to money laundering.

I want to know, if everything was done by the letter of the law, why did Elections Canada reject not one not two but a myriad of claims? Also, why was it necessary for the Conservative Party to take the Elections Canada decision to court and not accept Elections Canada findings, as all of us as candidates have? Why are the Conservatives putting the taxpayers to the expense of defending Elections Canada?

7:10 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's direct question was, why is the Conservative Party taking Elections Canada to court? Quite frankly, we are doing it so that our candidates can get their reimbursements.

We believe that Elections Canada erred. It is that simple. If the member, who I believe in a former life might have been a lawyer by profession, would care to examine the affidavits that we have filed in the Federal Court, he would quickly come to the same conclusion that we have, that there was full compliance with elections law and that our candidates affected should be eligible to get their reimbursement back.

We have given over 100 examples of similar activity from other candidates in different parties which clearly demonstrate that the method we used on our regional advertising purchases were exactly the same as other parties used. I think that at the end of the day we will be able to clearly demonstrate to all Canadians, particularly those naysayers in this House, that we were in full compliance with electoral law.

The examples are many and varied, but clearly it is an indication that each candidate should have the right to determine what kind of advertising would best serve his or her purposes of getting elected.

What we have done in all of these cases is we have used national ads, yes, but they have been authorized by the local candidate. Frankly, I think that is quite a common practice that we have seen not only in federal elections but also in provincial elections.

I have stated in the House on several occasions that in one of my former lives I was responsible for the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan in working within an all-party committee to make changes to the Saskatchewan elections act. What we did in the changes we made to that act were very similar to the federal Canada Elections Act. In fact, all parties agreed that we would try to mirror the Canada Elections Act in all things that we could. One of those aspects was regional advertising buys. We copied exactly what the federal one allowed and did not allow and embraced that into the Saskatchewan elections act.

Therefore, I know a little bit of what I speak and I can assure members of the House and my hon. colleague that Elections Canada in my opinion certainly erred in its rulings. That is why we are taking it to court. We want our candidates to get their reimbursements, which they are duly owed.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the parliamentary secretary has had previous lives. He may need nine of them in a place like this.

I am confused in that the affidavits that have been referred to, which I have gone over in part because I am implicated in one of them, are comparing apples and oranges.

In the New Brunswick case, 10 MPs bought ads with locally raised money for an advertisement that was in all papers of provincial distribution, including the ridings in which each of the 10 MPs were involved.

In the Conservative example in Moncton for instance, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, $7,600 came from the national fund, was spent on national advertising which did not have prominence in the riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and then was paid back. It is completely different.

In short, I understand that the parliamentary secretary is saying that the Elections Canada ruling was wrong. Will he abide by the ruling of the court and undertake not to appeal and waste taxpayers' money?

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that we always abide by rulings of the court. I think he should be aware of that.

I also want to suggest to the hon. member that he is wrong when he says that the examples we have cited in our affidavits were completely different. They are not.

In fact, one example is that of the member for Vancouver East. That affidavit also contained e-mails between the national party, in this case it was the New Democratic Party, and the member for Vancouver East where it says not to worry because the $2,000 transfer which was sent in order to purchase the ads would be completely covered and it is entirely within the electoral act.

If the member chose to examine carefully all the affidavits that we filed in Federal Court, he would come to the same conclusion as we have, that we are on the right side of this issue and Elections Canada erred.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 7:16 p.m.)

Debates of Nov. 26th, 2007

Topics