Debates of April 29th, 2008

Opposition Motion—Elections Canada

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We did not see any of that, Mr. Speaker, and yet the good, hard-working volunteers were struggling. Money was put into the riding but then quickly pulled out. Forty per cent of that riding's budget was used to buy ads elsewhere.

Any average Canadian is going to look at that and wonder what is going on. They are going to ask how a claim can be made that this is a perfectly normal practice? It is not a perfectly normal practice. A perfectly normal practice is when a federal party looks at a riding and considers buying some ads because it feels it might have a chance of winning that riding. Those ads are clearly marked for use in a local campaign. Whether the money is transferred to the local party or whether it is held by the national party is very clear.

What we are dealing with here is something different. We are dealing basically with what amounts to laundering money by sending it to ridings then pulling it back and paying for national advertising. That is the background.

The real issue here is the response when the government party was caught. It tried to hit up taxpayers for rebates that Elections Canada said it was not entitled to receive.

The Conservatives could have looked at this as though they were corporate lawyers and said that because it was a grey area they thought they found a loophole and could get away with it. A Mack truck could be driven through that loophole. The Conservatives were caught. They could have said they learned their lesson.

That was not their response, however. They responded by attacking Elections Canada with a series of insinuations as though Elections Canada was somehow a partisan wing of the Liberal Party, that somehow it was involved in a nefarious attack.

This has really become an open-ended attack on an institution of parliamentary democracy in this country. If the Conservatives are telling citizens at home that they cannot trust the election process in Canada, it is very much a scorched earth policy. That desperate party is trying to mislead the Canadian public about how it circumvented the very clear rules. The Conservatives knew they were circumventing the rules.

Now we are in a situation where the Conservatives have turned their attack on an institution that ensures the validity of elections in Canada. This institution is used internationally. It has set a standard.

The Conservatives have now hunkered down in their war room. A few of their spin doctors are basically trying to run the country. Anyone who asks questions will immediately be attacked. They have launched one lawsuit after another if anyone questions them. Those members have turned the government House committee into a total zoo. I sit on that committee and I find the actions of Conservative members absolutely embarrassing. They have been elected to this place and they are expected to show up and do a job for the people of Canada, and yet they are standing on their heads in an attempt to interfere with that job.

We have seen attempts to stop any investigation time after time. When Elections Canada finally had to bring in the RCMP, the attack was turned on that institution.

We simply cannot have that. We need confidence in our public institutions. We need confidence in parties playing by the rules, whether they like to or not. We as a Parliament are duty bound to declare our recognition of the work Elections Canada does. We are duty bound to say that these partisan attacks simply have to stop.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening in the lobby and just got the tail end of my colleague's comments. We all share concerns about fair elections, fair process and equality. The evidence is clear and has not been refuted by Elections Canada that the Conservative Party never refused to provide it with that information.

I wonder if my colleague has taken the time, as I suspect he has, to look at the Elections Act in its great thickness. There are hundreds of contradictions within the act itself, but when we look at the manuals that go with the act that are sent out to returning officers and so on, there are hundreds more contradictions from one to the other.

I am wondering if he has ever tried to get guidance from Elections Canada because we have. It always comes back, “Sorry, we are not here to provide guidance. Get a lawyer and he will give you an opinion”. When that happens, a couple of years later it comes back, “Sorry, we now disagree with the opinion you got”, and now we are wrong and we are somehow to be punished.

Does the member think that in a case where nothing had been refused Elections Canada, that it is reasonable or fair for them to ask the RCMP, and this was not an RCMP raid, it was an Elections Canada exercise with a standing agreement with the RCMP, to take that drastic action when nothing had been refused, that if it had asked for it, it would have received it?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure whether my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party really recognizes the gravity of the situation.

We are dealing with accusations that the Conservative Party sat down to find a way to circumvent the spending limits. If this party were as open and transparent as it is now claiming to be, post-RCMP raids, we would not have had the monkey show here in Parliament that went on for months. The Conservatives were threatening members of Parliament who asked questions. They were shutting down the committees or they were basically running out the back door rather than address the simple question.

The Conservatives are expecting us to believe that they were forthcoming when they went immediately on the attack against Elections Canada, trying to basically trash reputations of independent representatives in this country.

The question was brought to the attention of the RCMP and a judge issued a warrant. There were certainly serious issues about why the Conservative Party members were emailing their local ridings, who were desperate for any kind of money and being told, “If we are going to send you money, we want to ensure that money is coming back the next day. We want access to your bank account so we can get the money back as quickly as we can”.

There are serious questions and I do not know if the member is actually recognizing how much of an impact this has had on public trust. That is why we, as politicians, in representing the hard-working honest politicians in the House in the various parties, have to restore public confidence.

We are not just here on some kind of elaborate shell game. We are not here as a money laundering scheme. We are here to ensure that elections are done in a fair and open manner, and if the Conservative Party had been open from the beginning, it probably would not have been in this trouble in the first place.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during elections it is often the practice of parties to run their national ads on some position or statement and say, “This ad is brought to you by your candidate” or “Your candidate in Mississauga South is Mr. John Doe”.

That alone is part of national campaign spending and it is not subject to rebate. However, if the money is given to a riding, to a candidate, and the candidate buys that same ad, it is subject to getting a rebate of 60%. It is quite a big difference, but the same outcome.

It appears that simply the mode in which the transaction took place makes all the difference in the world. In the Income Tax Act we have a general anti-avoidance provision. Basically, if it is not specifically covered, if it is clear that it is to get around the rules, it can be dealt with. I wonder if the member would care to comment. It appears that it is not what was done, but how it was done, and the fact that it creates a new liability on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we need to keep focused on here is that the Conservative Party had reached its national spending limit and it was trying to find a way to exceed that spending limit. It was looking at campaigns where it had very little chance of winning but had high ceilings. What is really going to be pertinent to this discussion at the end of the day is to find out where that money was spent. If the money that was put into northern Ontario ridings where we saw almost no advertising, if they had to pay for ads in other regions, then clearly the Conservative case is going to be nailed shut in terms of how far it went over the line.

Again, we have to get back to the simple question of public trust. As I said at the beginning of my speech, when I first ran for election, my campaign manager told me that if I was not sure, then do not do it. The Conservative Party was really sure what it was doing. It was looking for a way to get $1.2 million in national advertising that it was not entitled to and once caught, rather than own up, the Conservatives were defiant and belligerent and they were still trying to ding the taxpayer for almost $700,000 in rebates to which they were not entitled.

Average Canadians play by the rules, but why is it that people in the Conservative Party of Canada think those rules are there to be broken and twisted around and at the end of the day they should also be entitled to money they are not entitled to?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord on the motion that he tabled in this House and which I had the pleasure of supporting.

I repeat, for the benefit of all those who are watching this debate, that the motion reads as follows:

That the House express its full and complete confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

I am convinced that people who are listening to us today wonder why the Bloc Québécois was compelled to table a motion that states the obvious. Normally, no one—and I am referring to all parliamentarians and the whole population—should question in any way our confidence in Elections Canada, which is the watchdog of our democracy in Quebec and in Canada, and in the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who is responsible for conducting the investigations that the Chief Electoral Officer deems necessary.

I must say, for the benefit of those who are watching us, that, regrettably, we reached a point where we had to table this motion in order to determine that, indeed, all parliamentarians in this House still consider Elections Canada to be a reliable, independent and credible organization.

Over the past few weeks—in fact since Elections Canada has been investigating certain practices of the Conservative Party relating to its use of election funds and its election spending claims—the defence used by the Prime Minister and the Conservative government has sought to undermine Elections Canada's credibility.

The Conservatives would have us believe that Elections Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections are ganging up on them for a motive that has never been explained to us, out of vengeance or for partisan considerations. Of course, that is absolutely false. The Conservatives' stubborn attitude toward Elections Canada, which alleges that they violated the Canada Elections Act, makes it necessary to set the record straight and to ask this House, today, to unanimously restate its confidence in this extremely important actor in the democratic process.

It is somewhat ridiculous that the Conservative Party, now accused of a number of practices that are in violation of the law, should play the victim and try to depict the agency responsible for enforcing the Canada Elections Act as the one who is trying to intimidate the Conservative Party and the government that it forms.

Again yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said in this House that the behaviour of Elections Canada was very strange, and suggested the agency was using a double standard. They implied not only that Elections Canada would apply special rules for the Conservative Party but also that the other parties in this House, the three opposition parties, used the same kind of tactics in the last election, which is false.

I remind the Conservative Party, the Conservative government and the Prime Minister that it is only Conservative candidates who are currently under investigation by Elections Canada. I also remind the Conservative Party, the Conservative government and the Prime Minister that only the offices of the Conservative Party were searched by the RCMP at the request of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

They should not try to take us for idiots by confusing the issue. It is very clear that this attempt by the Conservatives, the Prime Minister and the Conservative government to confuse the issue by throwing the burden of proof back on to Elections Canada does not fool anyone. Unfortunately, all of that has forced us to introduce this motion today.

What the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board very clearly insinuated—as did other government representatives, including even the Prime Minister—is that Elections Canada, which is an independent agency, had a political agenda and applied different criteria. They insinuated that this office had not only lost its independent character but also its status as an agency that must apply fair and equitable criteria for all the parties.

Yet it is precisely because Elections Canada wants to ensure that the criteria for enforcing the Act are fair and equitable that there is currently an investigation into the practices of the Conservative Party.

It is important to remember that Elections Canada is an independent, non-partisan agency that reports to Parliament and is responsible for organizing elections and administering the political financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act. It is also the agency that has the important mandate of monitoring political parties' compliance with electoral legislation and enforcing that legislation. The current investigation into the practices of the Conservative Party is entirely within the mandate of Elections Canada.

If there were searches in the offices of the Conservative Party, it is because the Commissioner of Canada Elections considered that the Conservative Party had not disclosed all the information required, or perhaps was preparing to destroy information or falsify documents. It is completely within the rules of the game to ensure that everyone respects the law and the established rules, especially when the democratic process is involved.

Also, under the Canada Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by resolution of the House of Commons. That is what section 13 states. Once in office, the incumbent reports directly to Parliament, not to the government, let alone to the Conservative Party, thereby acting at arm's length from the government and the political parties. As I indicated, that provision of the Canada Elections Act ensure that kind of independence.

As hon. members know, the age limit for chief electoral officers is 65, and the officer holds office until retirement or resignation. may hold office years of age. He or she may only be removed for cause by the Governor General on address of both the House of Commons and the Senate. It is clear from the process that the intention is to preserve this independence.

Now, we have a governing party which, with a series of totally unfounded insinuations, is trying to undermine that independence. For partisan purposes, it is suggesting that the head of Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections are somehow determined to go after the Conservative Party.

To ensure independence, the Chief Electoral Officer has to perform the duties of the office on a full-time basis and may not hold any other office or engage in any other employment. What is more worrisome about what has been going on for the past several weeks is that the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party are trying to undermine the credibility of Elections Canada, casting aspersions on its independence and its non-partisan nature. I should remind those listening, however, that the current Chief Electoral Officer was appointed on February 9, 2007, and that the Prime Minister himself made the recommendation. His appointment was later confirmed by Parliament. It is pretty incredible therefore that, from the moment that he started to perform his duties and act in accordance with Elections Canada's mandate, Chief Electoral Officer Mayrand, in whom the Prime Minister had full confidence, suddenly no longer possessed all the qualifications that had led the Prime Minister to appoint him.

There is nothing new about this though. Over the last two years—because we have already endured two long years of this minority Conservative government—we have come to know the Prime Minister pretty well. We have learned that he considers the government his private domain. In a number of issues, we have seen his wish or his desire—because it is not just a wish in his case and more a firm resolve—to exercise total control over all possible aspects of the federal government and attempt in various ways to minimize the counterbalances that our democratic system provides, beginning with the media, the courts, all democratic institutions in Canada and Quebec, and the fact we live under the rule of law.

The Prime Minister’s desire to control everything and minimize the counterbalances could be seen in his relations with the press. We all remember how surprised the journalists were on Parliament Hill to see the Prime Minister trying not only to avoid them but also to ensure that his ministers and MPs were unable to express the views of the government, their department or their voters to the written and electronic press here in Ottawa.

The Prime Minister also wanted to control the process for selecting judges so that they would interpret the laws in the way in which he wanted. This was all very clear. In addition, his first appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada was criticized by many people in Quebec and Canada because the judge was a unilingual anglophone. This would probably be a problem, both for lawyers and the people who appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Prime Minister wanted to interfere, therefore, in the judge selection process. He also tries to control information, as I said, by refusing to meet the members of the parliamentary press gallery and doing everything in his power to ensure it is very difficult to get information under the Access to Information Act and, if it finally does reach the people who inquired, it is only in extremely censored form.

There was a good example this morning in the Globe and Mail, according to which the Department of National Defence has produced a little guide—or more thick than little, in all senses of the word—telling military personnel how to make sure that access to information requests are either refused, circumvented or censored. This is all very obvious, therefore, and it is despite the recommendations in the Manley report, which said that the government should be more transparent, in particular, about the Afghanistan mission.

What we have instead is a document telling military personnel—despite themselves, I am sure—how to ensure that information is as difficult as possible to get when it has to be produced at all despite the desires of the Prime Minister and his government.

We also see a Prime Minister who wants to control the parliamentary process by telling the chairs of the committees to sabotage their work. This can be seen currently at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We are concerned about that, and the same attitude was displayed about other issues. Take for example the Chalk River reactor. The head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission gave her advice, but it was not in line with what the Prime Minister and the government wanted. I do not deny that, at the time, we agreed with the government’s proposal to resume production of isotopes for medical uses, but the head of the commission did her job. Parliamentarians could have made a different decision. But her firing by the Minister of Natural Resources was nothing but vengeance.

So, the Conservative government, the Conservative Prime Minister, and the Conservative Party of Canada are launching a systematic attack against Elections Canada. This is part of an overall strategy. It is extremely important for our democracy that opposition parties shed some light on this for the public.

Let us deal now directly with this matter of the contributions that were allegedly transferred between different levels of the party during the 2005-06 election. Since the election was held in 2006, let us call it the 2006 election. Right from the outset, the Prime Minister and all the Conservatives that were involved in this matter claimed that they had followed the law. But we have already seen that in a couple of instances, the Conservative Party “neglected” to report a number of contributions that were not legal under the electoral rules.

As I recall, in December 2006 they forgot to report the receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Chief Election Officer. What was involved were the registration fees of the Conservative delegates at the Conservative party convention in May 2005. That is when they started to claim—and the Prime Minister was the first to do so—that there was no problem. Six months later, the Conservative Party had to admit that it had not reported to the Chief Election Officer the receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars. All in all, the additional amount that had to be reported was $536,915 in unreported contributions, and other revenues of $913,710.

These revenues, which amounted to about $1.45 million, were not declared. As we have all seen, there was nothing novel about the Prime Minister's initial reaction, which was to say that nothing illegal was done regardless of Elections Canada's allegations.

Other members have already pointed this out, but I too must say that the evidence is mounting. Even within the Conservative Party's electoral apparatus, there were serious doubts about the legality of transfers from the national party to certain ridings and back to national headquarters to pay for national advertising. As a result, 60% of the money was reimbursed, which is what happens when candidates in ridings claim reimbursements for elections expenses, as you know.

We have seen at least two emails about this. The first was from a Conservative Party advertising official who expressed serious doubts about the legality of the strategy, of the scheme. The second, which we saw recently, was another email sent to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Prime Minister's political lieutenant for Quebec. In the email, certain details about implementing the strategy and related problems were discussed. For example, some riding associations wanted to participate in transferring money from national party headquarters to the ridings, money that would then be used to pay for the Conservative Party's national advertising, but there was no Conservative candidate. That made things a little tricky. A candidate had to be found quickly in order to carry out the strategy.

We found out today that right here in the Outaouais, two former candidates had received transfers even though there was little chance they would be elected, as they themselves said. For example, Gilles Poirier, who is the head of the accounting department at the Université du Québec en Outaouais and was the Conservative Party candidate in Hull—Aylmer, said that during the 2006 election:

The person in the Montreal office who was responsible for candidates in the Outaouais called me to announce the good news that the party would be investing money in my campaign—

Three days after the money was deposited in the Hull-Aylmer Conservative riding association account, he learned that the money had to be returned to the Conservative Party and he was told that the party would take care of the advertising. He always thought it was a matter of regional advertising. This is what he said, “I, as a candidate, was lead to believe the money was for regional advertising.”

We know that most of the money transferred by the Outaouais ridings to the national Conservative Party was used to pay for regional ads in the Quebec City area. I do not see how that could have helped Mr. Poirier—although I do not know him personally—who seems to be as surprised as Elections Canada that these transfers were used for national ads during the election campaign.

As I was saying earlier, I do not want to dwell on the investigation that is now in the hands of Elections Canada. Again, I hope that all parliamentarians, all the members of this House, will vote in favour of this motion in order to move on to something else, namely finding out exactly what happened in the Conservative Party during the 2006 election.

We see that the ethic position the Prime Minister was advocating during the election campaign was all for show. Until proven otherwise, the Conservative Party is doing everything in its power to keep the truth under wraps. The truth will come out one day, probably quite quickly, and every day more pieces of the puzzle are falling into place.

If I may, I want to close by saying that this is the same attitude that exists toward the nation of Quebec: the government says it recognizes the nation of Quebec, but in fact, it is not putting its money where its mouth is. This same attitude exists toward the mission in Afghanistan: the government is not being transparent. This same attitude exists toward the environment. This same attitude exists toward the death penalty. This same attitude exists toward abortion. It is the same attitude everywhere. This government is trying to hide its real agenda. Fortunately, the government's true colours are revealed in its way of doing things. Voters, in Quebec in any case, will remember this come election time.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my colleague. First of all, I thank him for his speech. This a matter of law and ethics. My questions will be very clear and simple. I will talk about the 2005-06 election, which was focused on ethics and scandals.

The current situation affects Conservative members in particular. This comes after years of Liberal scandals and harsh words directed at the Liberal government. After the Gomery inquiry and everything that happened with Mr. Chrétien, it is hard to believe that the Conservatives are now using the same ethics regarding law, money and public trust that the Liberals were using back then. It is the same with environmental issues. The government says one thing and does another.

I believe it is also a matter of law. How can the government say it abides by the legislation without respecting its spirit? The spirit of the current Elections Act is to make sure that everybody is treated fairly and equitably. However, at the same time, the Conservative Party believes that it is acceptable to spend more than one million dollars over the legal limit. What does the member think about the ethical value of the Conservatives' actions and their respect of the spirit of the legislation?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think it is very insightful.

It is even more paradoxical that these schemes are clearly intended to exceed the election spending limits provided for in the legislation. We are talking about over $1 million dollars, an amount which is quite significant in an election campaign. For instance, some regions where the Conservatives could foresee some gains must have received a good share of this windfall at the end of the campaign. It is quite a paradox to realize that this took place when the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister were campaigning on transparency and accountability and some toughening of ethics rules that had been—and this has to be recognized—quite undermined by the previous Liberal government.

If people want to clean things up, they have to be irreproachable. In that sense, not only have they violated the intent of the law, but they also violated the law itself. Even if they had violated only the spirit of the law, that was already a misstep because, during the election campaign they wanted Canadians and Quebecers to believe that, finally, with the Conservatives in power in Ottawa, there would be real ethics, responsibility and transparency. However, it was false pretence and, in that sense, Canadians were misled in this general election. The acts that are presently being investigated by Elections Canada are the best proof of that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues talked about the letter of the law. It is pretty difficult to decipher the letter of the law when we read the Elections Act or any of the guidance that comes out from there.

He talked about the convention fees. Again, we were following the letter of the law. Elections Canada decided, after the fact, to change that, which resulted in the taxpayers paying for our convention. We did not want them to do that. The Liberals apparently wanted them to pay for their convention which they subsequently did.

I have a question for the member. Why is it not okay for Conservative Party candidates to challenge decisions and rulings by Elections Canada but it is okay for others to do that? Given the lack of clear guidance in the Elections Act and the manuals, it was okay for the hon. member for Toronto Centre to challenge Elections Canada on a funding ruling and he won. Why is there a double standard? Why is it okay for others to challenge Elections Canada and not this party?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very big difference between individual and isolated cases and the one we are dealing with here.

Yes, a candidate for a party can, for example, forget to include the official agent authorization at the end of a brochure or flyer. There are isolated cases.

Here it is a matter of some 60 cases in which the scheme we are now aware of appears to have been used. Even people who worked on the Conservative campaign had concerns right at the time of the election.

If one, two, even five Conservative Party candidates had been investigated by Elections Canada, or had had a dispute with Elections Canada, the hon. member's question would make some sense. But now it is a matter of 60 or so candidates all being investigated for precisely the same thing. There are emails to prove that the entire Conservative Party machinery was aware of the scheme, and that even some employees of some Conservative Party ad agencies had doubts about the legality of what was being done. For example, a woman working for Retail Media had concerns as early as December 6, 2005, about what she saw happening daily.

The case we are dealing with here is not at all the same. This is a scam, rather like the one that came out in the sponsorship scandal. It is not the same, because it looks very much like something that was cooked up in order to get around the Canada Elections Act. In a democracy, this is an extremely serious matter, particularly coming from a party that won the election that followed these irregular expenses.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this week's Hill Times is a list of the 67 Conservative candidates who participated in this in and out scheme. I do not know the answer but I note that not one of the candidates who participated in the scheme comes from the province of Alberta, though there are participants from all the other nine provinces. It is kind of an interesting observation. I am not exactly sure why but maybe there is a reason.

The fundamental of this is that something has happened that has created a difference. An advertisement could have been purchased directly by the national campaign of any party and that would not qualify for any additional money because parties already get their annual allotments and are subject to a limit of $18.3 million for national advertising.

By virtue of the fact that the Conservatives transferred cash in and out, which amounted to $1,375,000, that created the big rebate difference. The rebates for those candidates were increased by $770,000.

The bottom line is that there are two issues. The first is that there was $1.3 million of overspending in the limit on the national campaign advertising, which is a fairness issue, a democracy issue.

The second has to do with the rebates and the fact that Canadians had to pay an additional $770,000 just because the Conservatives used a particular scheme to get around the rules of the Elections Act.

Since the government has explained, according to it, that there is nothing here that is illegal and that everybody does it, why is it that the government has been filibustering the procedure and House affairs committee and refusing to allow it to get these facts on the table? What is it hiding?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question. If the government, the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister have nothing to hide, why did the RCMP need to search their offices so that the Commissioner of Canada Elections could carry out his inquiry? If they have nothing to hide, why would they prevent the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights from examining and getting to the bottom of this issue?

The government's attitude leads us to believe that we do not know the whole truth. As I was saying, the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place, and the credibility of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party, which has already taken quite a hit after only two years in power, could disappear entirely. If they are sincere, which I seriously doubt, they should tell the truth, give all the information to Elections Canada and demonstrate transparency. Then we would be able to see what this is all about.

Until proven otherwise, Elections Canada alleges that there were irregularities. I certainly have more trust in Elections Canada than in the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide all hon. members with a clear, open and, most important, complete account of the facts surrounding the Elections Canada affair.

I say complete for a reason, for if we view the Elections Canada affair through the lens of that agency versus the Conservative Party alone, then we are taking a much too narrow view of the facts. What I want to lay out on the public record today is that the other parties in the House availed themselves of the exact same methods identified in this dispute and yet Elections Canada chose to scrutinize only Conservative Party candidates in this regard.

I am sure the irony cannot be lost on the members of the House, even as they piously call for truth in answers, that certain opposition members spent their week away from the House presenting Canadians with a storyline that was not in concert with the truth.

There are a lot of questions to be answered for sure but what the opposition parties, like Elections Canada, cannot get away from is that they will be the ones who will be expected to come clean with many of the answers, the most important of which is why they condemn practices that they themselves use.

Before I get into the meat of this issue, I would like to briefly talk about something known as national content as it relates to political advertising.

Here in the House of Commons we are in the business of governance. We are elected by the people of Canada and working for the people of Canada. That is what we do and, whether one is a part of the government or a member of the opposition, it should be the goal of all members in the House.

We all have slightly different approaches as to how this work for the people should be carried out. Some of us believe that Canadians want a government that puts faith in individual families and small businesses. Some in the House instead believe the only good answers can come from the government itself. Some parties in the House are old school centralists, some parties in the House were elected on a separatist platform and some in the House were elected on the sentiment that the centralist versus the separatist debate was accomplishing nothing for Quebec or anyone else. Therefore, we have offered Canadians a different say.

In short, we have a diversity of political opinion in the House, one that reflects the diversity of opinion that makes our country great.

All of us here were elected by our constituents. Some of us are more seasoned, while others have only been elected for less than a month. Regardless of length of service, though, surely all of us remember going door to door in our ridings, and for some us the doors were a little further apart than others, and speaking to our potential constituents about what we were going to do to help the people of our ridings and just as important, about what the party we represented was going to do for Canada.

In short, while local candidates campaign on local issues, they also, to a large degree, rely on national issues of the party they represent. Balancing local, regional and national issues is a healthy part of our democracy. We are all responsible to our constituents but we are also all part of a national team: one party, one leader, one national message. That is the way it works.

That is the way it is supposed to work. Local candidates are going to talk about national issues, which is why they are federal candidates, which is how Canadians know who we are, what we stand for and what we are going to do for them. That is what is known as national content. Whether it is buttons, T-shirts, banners, flyers, pamphlets, TV commercials or radio ads, local federal candidates will work closely with the national campaign on their local campaigns. Every party does this and every party is right to do this.

The fundamental inviolable rule, however, is that local campaigns take full responsibility for local expenses, while the national campaign takes full responsibility for national expenses. On this count, the Conservative Party and our local campaigns are in full compliance with the Canada Elections Act. To say otherwise is false and a gross distortion of the facts.

That is why in May 2007 the Conservative Party took Elections Canada to court. The court case specifically related to Elections Canada's refusal to recognize the expenses claimed by some Conservative candidates for the 2006 election because of some new and novel definition of what it called national content. Elections Canada apparently wanted to send a message that this kind of collaboration was wrong.

This is very thin ice for Elections Canada. It is moving away from serving as an impartial arbiter of the rules toward a highly interventionist approach that actually passes judgment on the content of different campaigns. That has never been the role of the agency and it should concern us all.

Let us look at another way that the national campaign helps local candidates. I am talking about the transfer of money to support local campaigns in order to carry out election related activities. Again, every party does this and every party is right to do this. However, curiously, in this case, it was only the Conservative Party that was singled out by Elections Canada. We were singled out for following, not only the long established rules of elections practice, but also the widely used practice of other major political parties.

I will share some examples with members of this House. Let us take, for example, part of the NDP campaign in British Columbia in 2006 election. According to documentation obtained through Elections Canada, NDP candidates for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Nanaimo—Cowichan, and Victoria all participated in a cooperative media buy with the national party organizers. These NDP cooperative media buys bore a striking resemblance to the matter that is behind the motion we debate today.

We should consider that they involve a number of local campaigns banding together to purchase advertising for their area. The NDP headquarters organized the buy. The invoices were processed by the NDP headquarters. No transactions occurred directly between the local campaigns and the media outlets. The cost of the media buys were allocated entirely to the local campaigns and the content of the advertising was based on the national content of the NDP campaign.

A similar occurrence transpired with NDP candidates, several of whom have gone on to become MPs sitting in this House in the greater Vancouver area. We should consider that there were no less than 12 NDP candidates in that region who participated in a local media buy where, again, Elections Canada did not question the validity of their transactions. I do not know whether our friends in the NDP have been visited by Elections Canada with the CBC and Liberal Party cameramen in tow, but given the events of the past week one would wonder why that is not the case.

When the Conservative Party took Elections Canada to court, examples of Liberal Party election practices were also provided. The Liberal Party also made liberal use of regional media buys. Who do we see named among the Liberals who partook in these regional media buys, surprise, surprise? We see none other than the name of the member for Beauséjour. Oddly, he chose not to focus on this during his press conference last week.

Again, according to Elections Canada documentation the member for Beauséjour participated in a local media buy that apparently was arranged by the national party and contained, with the exception of the local candidate's name, entirely national content.

As with the previous NDP examples, this media buy again involved combined local campaigns banding together to buy regional media advertising, arrangements that were made by national party organizers, invoicing processed at the national level and no prior contact between the local campaigns and the media outlets.

However, in the instance of the campaigns of the member for Beauséjour, Elections Canada documentation contained a Liberal Party memo that notes the local campaign was to pay for the advertising. However, as there is no listing of this purchase within the documentation of the member's Elections Canada return, we are left to guess how those ads were paid for and by whom.

I wonder if the hon. member might clarify to this House whether he has had Elections Canada officials, CBC crew members, RCMP officers and other parties' cameramen knock on the doors of his party's office over this practice. Although the member's finances appear to be non-compliant, again, these New Brunswick regional media buys did not appear to merit questions by Elections Canada.

There is a rather vicious irony to this. The member who is being most vocal about the purported abhorrence of this practice has engaged in it himself and with what appears to be less than compliant methods.

Questions have also been raised about the practice of transferring funds from the national party to local campaigns to assist them with electoral related activities.

First, let us put aside the fact that it is perfectly reasonable for local campaigns to be supported by their national headquarters. As I mentioned earlier, we are all working toward a common goal and despite a lot of noise from our friends opposite to suggest otherwise, they not only think but they also act the same way. According to Elections Canada documentation obtained by Conservative Party lawyers, it is very clear that the Liberal, NDP and Bloc all engage in the same practice as the Conservative Party.

For example, the 2006 election documentation shows many examples of Liberal Party headquarters transferring substantial funds but also invoicing similarly substantial funds as well. Documentation shows that the Liberal Party made $1.7 million in transfers to local candidates in the 2006 election, while invoicing them $1.3 million as well.

The NDP made $884,000 in transfers to NDP local candidates, while invoicing them a total of $545,000 for goods and services provided to them in the election.

The Bloc made $732,000 in monetary transfers to its local candidates in the 2006 election, while invoicing its local candidates $820,000 for goods and services rendered.

It is quite clear that all parties in this House engage, most vigorously I would add, in the practice of transferring money back and forth between headquarters and local ridings during elections.

Additionally, in Elections Canada documentation, it is clear that there are numerous examples where transfers from party headquarters to Liberal, NDP and Bloc candidates exactly or closely matched amounts that candidates were invoiced by the national party.

The member for Don Valley West was invoiced $5,000 by the Liberal Party on June 16, 2004. The Liberal Party also deposited a cheque for $5,000 to the candidate on July 9. On June 28 the candidate paid the Liberal Party invoice with a cheque of $5,000. Then the candidate cashed the Liberal Party cheque on July 15. That is the same amount. That is Liberal campaign spending in and out.

The member for Vancouver East was invoiced $7,003.64 by the NDP on January 13, 2006. On January 31, 2006, a cheque from the NDP to the candidate for $7,003.64 was deposited. On February 1, 2006 a cheque from the candidate to the NDP that pays the invoice for $7,003.64 was written and cashed on March 1. That is the very same amount. That is NDP campaign spending in and out.

Clearly this is a common practice. Should the courts ever rule that a different interpretation of the law is in order, then all parties will have to change their practices. The courts will make that decision, not the Conservative Party, not the Liberal Party, not the Bloc nor the NDP, and not Elections Canada.

All of these examples I have brought up today are clearly laid out in the affidavit submitted by the Conservative Party to the courts over our legal challenge to Elections Canada. We have been very clear. Not only do we feel that we have followed the rules which are laid out by Elections Canada, but it is also clear that we have adhered to a standard no different from any other party's in this House.

As my hon. colleague stated earlier, all of us here have the honour to be elected to this House by the people of Canada and although we have different ideas about the best way to run the country, one hopes that at the end of the day we all have the same goal, which is to run it well. Each of us sitting here worked hard to win this honour. There was a lot of pounding the pavement, long hours and dedication.

Conservative candidates played by the rules, the same rules followed predominantly by candidates from all parties. Our local candidates talked about local issues and they talked about national issues. We supported our local candidates in their efforts to win office, the same way that the other parties in this House supported their local candidates in an effort to win office.

Those are the facts. Everything else is political posturing.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members opposite for giving us the opportunity to set the record straight.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the hon. member understands my questions, so I will ask them in English. I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

The first question is with respect to the money that was transferred. I gave the example a little while ago to his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, but I think the member chose not to answer my question.

The Conservative candidate in my riding of Hull--Aylmer received roughly $50,000 from the Conservative Party. The money went in and out. When he submitted his election report, and should that $50,000 be accepted, he would get roughly 60% back, or $30,000. Is that $30,000 transferred to the local association, or does the candidate have to return it to the central party?

I was listening to the hon. member for Calgary West and I heard him say that this was perfectly legal, totally legal, nothing but legal. I am looking at his 2006 financial report, the campaign return. He was allowed $87,014.95 in election expenses and he only submitted a claim of $47,434.67. Roughly there is room for another $40,000. If this was so legal, why is it that he did not accept from the central Conservative Party that it transfer and remove $40,000 so that he would have been within his limit of $87,000 and he would have made 60% of the extra $40,000? Why is it that he did not get that extra money from his party?

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out once again what I consider to be the hypocrisy in this, because the other parties engage in exactly the same practice and it is a long-standing practice.

In my particular riding we are very fortunate that it is a wealthy riding and we have been around as a long-established Conservative Party. I do not believe the seat has been represented by a Liberal, NDP or Bloc member ever in the history of this country going all the way back to R.B. Bennett. As a result, my constituency does not feel as though it has to transfer money during the midst of a campaign. We can run a campaign on less than $50,000, and God bless the constituents of Calgary West, they will elect a Conservative, and they probably would elect a Conservative for less money.

That being said, any money that is transferred or that we give away can be done before the election campaign. It does not need to be done during the midst of the campaign like it is for other parties and other candidates and other circumstances. My riding of Calgary West does have more than $50,000 to spend on a campaign, but we are confident that people will re-elect a Conservative in my riding, so these transactions take place before the election occurs, not during the writ.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, just to underscore what my hon. colleague from Calgary West was saying in response to the member for Hull—Aylmer, the Conservative Party has transferred money into ridings or regions in which we needed to get additional political support. Clearly, Calgary West is not an area where we really need to pump up our support, since Conservative members have been elected there for many, many years. That is why, if we take a look at all of the areas in which money was transferred, it was to areas and regions in which we had an opportunity to elect more Conservative members. That is why we absolutely, within the rules, did the same thing as the other parties and transferred money into those areas.

It has been stated by the former commissioner of Elections Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, that the determining factor between what constitutes a national ad and a local ad is the tag line. I can verify that quite clearly because in a previous life I ran a provincial party and I was also involved in revamping the provincial electoral laws. When we did a revision of the Saskatchewan election laws, we mirrored almost identically the laws that controlled federal election practices.

When it came to determination of local versus provincial ads, we had the same situation. As a matter of fact, before any election, I always got written clearance from the provincial electoral officer as to if we group bought and put a number of ads together, provincial in scope, purchased by local candidates, as long as they had their tag lines on the bottom, would that constitute a local ad and would that be eligible for local reimbursements. The answer that always came back was “yes”. That was identical to the provisions contained in the federal Elections Act.

I simply ask my hon. colleague from Calgary West, is it his interpretation, as it is mine, that if all candidates who participated in giving out a national advertising message had local tag lines on the bottom of their ads, that would comply with federal election laws and would be considered a local ad?

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it makes perfect sense that if there is a local tag line, it is a local ad, and I am going to get into why.

When designing a TV ad, the question can be raised as to where it was edited. The question can be raised as to where the concepts or the storyboards were done and who did them, et cetera. We could split, slice and dice that so many different ways.

Ultimately what Elections Canada has previously decided is that the tag line is the determiner, and that is indeed what has been accepted as the going practice. I think that is the way we have to look at it, because I know there are federal parties in this place that have had their campaign ads even done outside this country, foreign-made campaign ads, your own party included, Mr. Speaker, and because they have local tags, they are considered local ads.

Opposition members can try to split hairs on this matter, but if there is a local tag line to the ad, it is considered a local ad, and I leave it at that.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of tag lines and local campaigns, would the hon. member explain to me how it could be that the Conservative candidate in the riding of Hull--Aylmer, right across the river from here in western Quebec, would have been advertising on local television in Quebec City?

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just to give an example within the Liberal Party, since I think it is wise to shed light on that side of the House as well--

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Just answer the question.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am answering the question and to that point, I know there is money from the federal Liberal Party, probably from members who are criticizing me today even, that goes to support Liberal candidates in southern Alberta, because God bless southern Alberta, but people there would not elect a Liberal I do not know when. As a result, the federal Liberal Party is so desperate to get candidates in southern Alberta and so desperate to help them out that it sends money and resources to Liberal campaigns in southern Alberta.

All parties in this place take areas of strength and fundraising capability to support areas where they are weaker. The Liberal Party has been weak in Alberta for a very, very long time and will continue to be so. It takes money from places like Quebec or Ontario to try to subsidize campaigns in southern Alberta.

The same is true with regard to the Conservative Party helping out candidates in places that are not as fortunate as in southern Alberta.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I have been a member of this House for 15 years and I really never thought that I would have to speak to a motion such as this. But today, it is absolutely necessary to do so.

The text of the motion reads:

That the House express its full and complete confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Why have we reached the point where it is necessary for the Bloc Québécois to table this motion? It is because of the Conservatives' behaviour during the election, which I will discuss later in my remarks. The behaviour of the Conservatives, in accusing Elections Canada of taking partisan positions, was completely unacceptable.

As for the Elections Canada appointment process, the chief executive officer and chief commissioner of Elections Canada is chosen with the support of the House of Commons. In our democratic system, it is very important that institutions like this are not exposed to comments such as we have heard from the Conservatives—and even from the Prime Minister in the past—comments that question an institution that is fundamental to our system of democracy, an institution that is in place to oversee the organization of elections and to apply the Elections Act. In the case at hand, this institution noticed that a number of Conservative candidates used an unacceptable procedure of claiming reimbursement for their expenses.

It also noticed—and this is why additional evidence was needed and why the police raided the Conservative offices—that it seems to have been an organized procedure. This is all going to be checked and confirmed. The raid produced a number of results. We will see how all these questions are answered. I am inclined to say that, if the Conservative Party is not satisfied with the Elections Canada decision, it can challenge it in court, as it has done. We will see for sure who is right.

But it is totally unacceptable for the Conservative Party, which forms the Government of Canada, to impugn the integrity of an institution like Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections. I think that the Conservative government has to take responsibility for what it has done and is continuing to do today. When we look at the facts, the Conservative position does not hold up for long.

Because the Conservative Party had reached the spending limit for the 2006 election, party officials allegedly transferred party funds and invoices to candidates in order to get around the spending limits. This initial move by the Conservatives is unacceptable. In return, the Conservative candidates who agreed to play a part in this scheme became eligible for a rebate from Elections Canada. The party funds were spent on national advertising and should have been included in national expenses. In the end, a rebate equivalent to 60% of this amount was requested for each of the ridings concerned. Elections Canada has refused to issue these rebates, because clearly this would have consequences for the most recent election, since the rules of the game were changed. It would also affect future elections, because if these rebates were granted, they would provide a significant amount of money to plan the next election campaign.

Elections Canada determined that this behaviour was unacceptable, and legal recourse was available to the Conservative Party, which took advantage of that recourse. However, the Conservative Party does not have to impugn the integrity of an organization like Elections Canada. In doing so, it has crossed a line that should not be crossed in a democracy such as ours. The Conservatives' behaviour is strangely reminiscent of stories we read in the papers about countries or states that do not have the democratic foundation or history we have. It is very surprising that the Conservatives are taking this tack. Moreover, the Prime Minister has confirmed this in statements he has made. This is the sort of situation in which we find ourselves.

Despite what happened with regard to registration fees and despite the documents that have been made public to date, the Conservatives are still saying everything was done legally. They are even claiming that Elections Canada is taking revenge on the Conservative Party for its lawsuit against Elections Canada for refusing to refund dozens of candidates' election expenses. This defence does not hold up when we look at the facts.

For example, during the 2005-06 election campaign, high ranking Conservative Party officials, including the Conservative Fund Canada president, developed a national advertising campaign scheme paid for by local candidates when they realized that the party was about to exceed its authorized spending limit. That is what is revealed in the emails that are currently being analyzed. A total of 67 Conservative candidates, some of whom are now ministers, were involved in this circular scheme, the in and out scheme, which Elections Canada has deemed illegal.

I also got the surprise of my life when I read in an article in Le Devoir that the Conservative Party wanted to carry out this plan in my riding and that it desperately sought a candidate to do so. That is what the email says: anywhere there was a candidate, it might be difficult to get people to accept it, but at least there would be someone to attribute the expense to.

The emails state that in ridings such as Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, there was still no candidate and that one absolutely had to be found in order to carry out the plan. This is what explains the selection of an individual no one had ever seen in my riding, who did not campaign for a single day and whom everyone described as a phantom candidate. That person did not necessarily participate in the plan, especially since it was in the final days of the campaign. In any case, my riding had been targeted as one place to carry out this plan.

Thus, money was spent in my riding to pay for national advertising, while the Conservative Party knew very well that the candidate there had practically no chance of winning. However, by moving some money around in that way, they were trying to influence the results elsewhere.

This kind of behaviour is truly unacceptable. The result at the end of the day should be quite clear. I think the legal process that is now underway will show us.

Again, it is very unfortunate that the Conservative Party has questioned the integrity of Elections Canada. Thanks to the changes to the appointment process for returning officers, the mechanisms that have been developed and the strength of democracy in Quebec and Canada, we are often asked to monitor elections in other countries. Our history is an effective guarantee that things have run properly at home. Now there is a major blemish on our record. The party in power in Canada is questioning the integrity of the agency in charge of running elections, Elections Canada, and of the elections commissioner.

We on this side are slowing gleaning information from what the Conservative candidates have reported. Elections Canada noticed some anomalies in the Retail Media invoices that were sent to them. The CEO of that media placement company in Toronto, Marilyn Dixon, thinks the bills were changed or simply created by someone other than an employee of her company. This type of behaviour is quite serious. We absolutely must get to the bottom of this.

Let us not forget that we are just coming out of rather troubling times when it comes to backroom deals, the sponsorship scandal and the totally illegal use of money here to try to influence the perception of Quebeckers toward their national future. This was demonstrated and an inquiry was held to look into the matter.

Now we have a new government that claimed to be above that type of behaviour. Perhaps that is why the Conservatives have such an aggressive reaction toward Elections Canada. It is indeed unacceptable to be caught red handed after claiming they would never, ever, behave in such a way. Ultimately we will see how this all plays out.

I will close by saying that much more transparency is needed. The Conservatives have to promise not to resort to such practices during the next election, regardless the result of the current investigation. For now, this is sending a message to Canadians that the party in power is not prepared to respect the rules and decisions of the agency in charge of running elections. That is very unhealthy for democracy.

What is healthy is the power to debate it in this House. I hope that our motion will receive a great deal of support from all members of this House.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to address this motion brought forward by our party. It is worth reading it again:

That the House express its full and complete confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

That is very important. Indeed, what has been going on over the past few weeks—namely the charge being made by the Conservative Party against Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections—is of great concern for our democracy, this for all sorts of reasons. There are, of course, historical reasons. Canada did not have to fight to protect its democracy. Over the past 50 or 100 years, those countries that had to take up arms to defend their democracy are well aware of the importance of having an organization that monitors elections and that enjoys the full and complete support of all citizens, and particularly of all the political parties participating in these elections.

In recent weeks, a political party in Canada has decided to challenge the only non-partisan agency responsible for ensuring that democracy is respected in this country. That is a choice that these people made. Personally, I believe this was a deliberate choice. It is always the about power at all costs. The Conservative Party, which saw the possibility of getting a majority looming on the horizon, decided to go all out to achieve its goal, and was even prepared to violate the Elections Act.

We are now well aware of the importance of advertising campaigns. One only has to look at what is going on in the United States. The result is often a reflection of the money invested in those advertising campaigns. The Conservative Party deliberately chose to spend more, because it had the money to do so. I realize that it may have been frustrated. It had a lot of money to spend, but there was an election spending limit. It tried to do everything it could to get a majority. Despite their efforts, the Conservatives form a minority government in this House, and it is a good thing that voters made that choice, and particularly that Quebeckers were very vigilant in choosing those who were going to represent them here. Once again, they put their confidence in the Bloc Québécois, which is the only party in this House that can rise day in and day out to protect their interests, without having to manipulate all the laws in an attempt to come to power. That is the reality.

Like you and I, the population must put up with the explanations given by the Conservative Party to try to justify itself and those explanations change everyday. When we look at the sequence of events, we realize that the seizure of documents by the Commissioner of Canada Elections is extremely important because it is bringing this scheme into public view. We saw the emails sent by the organizers. We saw how they operated. I do not want to go through everything that was done, email after email, but we now know that the Conservative organization knew that its spending would exceed the limit and that it was desperate to win a majority at all costs.

I insist on that expression, “a majority at all costs”. In the end, that pits them against the only organization that does not do politics and is there to ensure the proper conduct of elections and respect for all laws, as in a good democracy. We should be giving a good example, as Quebec always has done. Indeed, it was under René Lévesque's direction that the first act to really limit election expenses and regulate political party financing was adopted. It was later used as a model by the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien. Quebec was a pioneer and that explains why you see here, in this Chamber, elected representatives from Quebec who have the utmost respect for institutions like Elections Canada, Élections Québec and the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

The tragic part in this is that the Conservatives decided to undertake civil action against Elections Canada, knowing very well that the impact of this would be to postpone the matter. It is a well known fact that civil actions drag on. With a good law firm, it is possible to delay the proceedings. One can practically decide when the hearing will take place. Quite simply, the Conservatives wanted to gain time until the next election. The election is still weeks or months away, but we all know it has to be held by 2009 at the latest.

Again, it will be possible to delay the proceedings until after the next election. The Conservatives hope to have a majority government then, but it will not happen because they do not respect the institutions Canadians chose to put in place. No member in this House can claim to be the great defender of Elections Canada. We can defend Elections Canada today, but we should do it on behalf of Canadian citizens, because they are the ones who give us the opportunity to sit in this House. This privilege is loaned, and not given to us. Obviously, it is the electorate that decides when it will take it back. The Liberals learnt that the hard way in the last election, and it is likely the Conservatives will undergo the same experience the next time around.

If the Conservatives are thrown out of office, it will be precisely because they did not respect a key institution like Elections Canada. That is why I am so proud today to stand in this House to represent the Quebeckers who elected me in my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, and I feel the same pride for all my colleagues who were elected in other areas of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is standing for and expresses its full and complete confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections. This shows the great spirit of democracy of all Quebeckers.

Achieving sovereignty takes time, but we will achieve it while respecting democracy. We have witnessed, in various inquiries that have taken place into both the sponsorship scandal and Option Canada, the federal way of trying to control democracy and of not being afraid to spend any amount at all, irrespective of the rules. In Quebec, there was disrespect of the legislation on elections and referendums at the time of the last referendum in 1995.

Once again, this is the most difficult part when there are Quebec members in the political party in question. These are true federalists. They do not hesitate to use the funding they need, even if this means going so far as to violate the electoral process. This is a great threat to democracy, and will make our battle one of the most significant in the world, because when Quebec achieves sovereignty, it will have done so while fully respecting democracy, but the same will not be said of our federalist adversaries.

If the Conservatives had even one moment of clear thinking—I am speaking to the Quebec Conservatives, the members elected by the people of Quebec—they would waste no time in voting in favour of the motion by the Bloc Québécois, which reiterates full and complete confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, because this is the only institution that is not politically involved and has the responsibility of ensuring that democracy is respected. The most important attribute of any self-respecting country seeking international recognition is to ensure that democracy is respected within its borders, and this the Conservatives are not doing at present.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my honourable colleague from the Bloc Québécois a question. Though he is not a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he has sat on the committee on occasion.

I would like to know what he thinks of the fact that one of the Conservative government members, during what we might call a filibuster, spent time talking to us about his dog. It was when we were discussing how money came in and out and when we at the committee were trying to hold an investigation so that we could question witnesses. During the filibuster, the Conservative member in question talked to us about his dog, and I would like to know what my colleague, seasoned parliamentarian that he is, thinks of that attitude.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for his question.

First of all, I have never seen that member's dog. However, his behaviour is typical of the Conservative Party. And I stand by that. This scheme was used by the Conservatives and the evidence of this is being uncovered by the RCMP. We saw that when documents were seized, and now emails are being made public. The Conservatives knew from the start that they had enough money to win a media campaign. The only problem was that there was a spending limit they could not exceed. When they felt that a majority government was within their grasp, they were willing to do anything to achieve their goal, including finding ways to get around our elections laws.

When a government that had everything planned quickly decides to launch a civil suit against Elections Canada because it wants to buy time, it means that it will stop at nothing. And when a committee of the House of Commons wants to look at the issue, the Conservatives resort to a filibuster. They will do that as often as they want because their only goal is to buy time until the next election campaign so they do not have to be subjected to the kind of repressive measures that could result from this.

The fate of those members who may have knowingly broken the law is very important, because no one should ignore the law. And when a member of Parliament who signed up as a candidate does not comply with the law, the penalty is the loss of his or her status as member of Parliament. That is the tragedy: 67 candidates should not have ignored the law and, today, they will try hard to win their case, because if found guilty, they would no longer be allowed to sit in this House.

This is the battle that the Conservative Party is waging, but it is a serious blow to democracy. When a party with a lot of money is willing to exceed the spending limits, circumvent the law and then go to court and spend all the money necessary to buy time, it certainly puts a black mark on democracy.