Candice Bergen

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a very thought-provoking and encouraging presentation of budget 2011.

I am wondering if he could expand for us the effect that our economic action plan has had in terms of creating jobs in his riding. We know now that 580,000 jobs have been created since July 2009. Could the hon. member comment on the effects that the economic action plan and these job creation programs have had on his riding?

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by very sincerely congratulating my colleague on his re-election. It is good to see him in the House.

One of the parts of the budget that has been very popular and very well supported in my riding is our ending of political subsidies. My hon. colleague has been involved in politics for a very long time. Would he not agree that it is actually healthier for a political party to raise funds on its own, to have policies that individual Canadians support and will actually back with their money? It be healthier for those parties because it would mean that they would need to be in touch with grassroots Canadians. There obviously is the tax implication and the fact that Canadians should not have to put money toward political parties that they do not support or agree with.

I am wondering what my colleague would have to say about that, given his experience in the political field, as well as seeing his party be successful and then not as successful in raising funds.

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for being re-elected and for being able to avoid the NDP wave, obviously.

I was actually quite shocked when I listened to my colleague speak about what has been done for families under the Conservative government.

Under the Liberal government, social programs were slashed, funding for provinces for health care was slashed, and every program that Canadian families used was slashed. It had such a negative effect on Canadian families. Certainly, it was something that as a Conservative government we said we would not do.

Instead, what did we do? We cut the GST. We gave families the child care benefit. That was something the Liberals would never have dreamed of doing. We are doing things for families like the sports tax credit and the arts tax credit, things that families are asking for.

I want to ask my hon. colleague, when will the Liberals get in touch with Canadians today? The problem is they are very much out of touch with Canadian values. Instead of seeing what Canadians need, they are again criticizing what this government has done.

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on being elected and on her comments today.

One of the reasons that Canadians gave the Conservative government a strong mandate in the election on May 2 was the fact that we are keeping taxes low. This morning one of my colleagues from across the way talked about a carbon tax, which is very disheartening. It is something that Canadians do not believe is effective and will penalize Canadians.

Why does my colleague want to increase taxes on Canadians?

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it appears to me that the opposition have quite an aversion to trying to raise funds on their own to support their election campaigns.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could just talk a little bit more about what it is like to travel around his riding, talk to people and have people tell him that they support what he is doing and give him a cheque for $10 or $20, as opposed to forcing taxpayers to support parties they do not believe in.

Could my colleague talk about what it means to actually raise money for our own campaigns?

[Committees of the House, March 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th and 12th reports of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, and Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age). The committee has studied both bills and has decided to report each bill back to the House with an amendment.

I wish to thank all of the committee members for their work and collaboration in the course of this process.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I can see my Manitoba colleague from Winnipeg Centre has had a little chamomile tea since yesterday, when I debated with him. He personally attacked and attacked me. It was shameful and disappointing.

However, let me proceed to what the issue is and what has the opposition parties so angry. The fact is they moved money from their national campaigns to their local campaigns and then moved the money back from the local campaigns to the national campaigns and claimed the 60% rebate on it. They want to say it is not true. The proof is on the Elections Canada website.

We also wonder what Elections Canada is looking at when it sees this information before all of us in the House and indeed all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are very familiar with their own party operatives being in jail for criminal charges. We were never so. Sadly, in the sponsorship scandal, criminal charges were laid and in fact people were prosecuted and put in jail.

The member brings forward an interesting point about local versus national ads. That certainly is a disagreement we have with Elections Canada. We have been forthright with it, that we disagree and we are talking, discussing and bringing this forward in court.

What is interesting, and I find it quite questionable and I have been asked by a lot of my colleagues, is this. When it came to money going in to NDP ridings, for example, and the money going out again, or in the case of the Liberals, where money went into their ridings and then out again to the national campaign, did they claim the 60% rebate from Elections Canada?

I am sure we will look into that as well as possibly some more investigative journalists because it was common practice. The NDP put money in, took money in and the Liberals put money, took money out and then claimed the 60% rebate.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the NDP's national bookkeeper, Lucie Ladouceur, sent this email to an NDP candidate. It has all of the characteristics that the Conservative transaction had.

This email was in the possession of Elections Canada. I am sure we will now see some investigative reporting by some of the media, who will also realize that these same practices were commonplace and paralleled by other parties. The email was filed with Elections Canada, and we obtained it from them through the Access to Information Act.

As John Robson from the Ottawa Citizen said at the time:

The more I watch this stuff...the more convinced I am that if there's a scandal here, it doesn't involve the Tories. But nobody seems to care. The opposition want a scandal, the press want a scandal...let's not bore ourselves with details—

However, let us also see what other supporters of the opposition say.

Robin Sears, a longtime advisor to the Liberal MP for Toronto Centre, as well as a longtime New Democrat, had this to say about the matter on the CTV news channel on February 25:

It's a load of nonsense—the guys at Elections Canada have a few bricks short of a load. Every party plays games with moving money around, have always done, will always do. What's a national ad, what's a local ad? It's nonsense. It's time we got back to things Canadians care about.

I am very surprised to be in agreement with a staunch NDPer like Robin Sears, but he hit the nail on the head with comments like those.

It is quite evident that the motion by the Liberal member for Beauséjour is contrary to the principles and practices of the House. It assumes there is a presumption of guilt and that the House can pass judgment on individuals without any respect for due process. Regardless of one's partisan support or opinion on the political financing issue being debated, I think Canadians would agree that the motion is very troubling when put in this perspective.

I submit that in a mature democracy such as Canada, we ought to respect the rule of law and due process before condemning anyone. I say this to preserve the credibility of the House, as well as the reputation of all of its members. Our democratic values require that the rights of the individual are not subject to the tyranny of a majority, in this case, the opposition or its coalition majority.

I therefore encourage all members to stand up for our democracy and reject the motion.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

I rise to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the Liberal member for Beauséjour. I have to wonder if he wrote the motion himself or if it was just handed to him by the office the Liberal leader. Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend around this place, both in the House and committees, for members of the Liberal Party to bring forward motions that are outrageous in their scope and nature.

When our party was in opposition, I can tell members that we would never have brought forward such a motion because we respect Parliament and we respect the priorities of Canadians.

Getting back to today's debate, I want to begin my remarks by stating that I find the text of today's motion very troubling. As my colleague pointed out earlier today, today's motion passes judgment on a political entity and on four private individuals. It asks the House to serve as judge and a jury over a private civil matter currently before the courts. Specifically, it makes a finding of fraud. It asks the Prime Minister to direct the financial affairs of a political party; it asks the Government of Canada to remove individuals from employment; and, similarly, it asks the Conservative Party to do the same.

I find these proposals contrary to the principles and values of a mature democracy. In Canada, we respect the rule of law, which includes due process and the presumption of innocence. For these reasons, the motion is at odds with long-standing parliamentary conventions and practices.

With that said, let me address the issues in the motion before the House today.

We completely reject the partisan motion brought forward by the Liberal Party. It is a clear attempt to play partisan politics. Unlike the Liberal Party, our Conservative government is, and will remain, focused on the real concerns of Canadians. It is a shameful that at a time when our economy is coming out of a tough recession and is slowly recovering, the Liberal Party brings forward a motion like this one today, instead of focusing on the real needs of Canadian families.

Canadians are rejecting the approach of the Liberal leader. That fact we can see throughout the last few weeks and months. Why is that? It is because Canadians know that the Liberal leader did not come back to Canada after being out of this country for many years because he cared about the interests of Canadians. Today's motion is proof that he is looking at his best interests and not the interests of Canadians, and that is a shame.

However, let us contrast the Liberal Party's approach with that of our Conservative government. While the Liberal Party would rather play partisan games, we are focused on the economy and bringing forward the next phase of Canada's economic 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 Canada. It has been going on for five years. The dispute is whether certain expenses should be counted as local expenses or national expenses. There certainly is a difference of opinion. We acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion with Elections Canada.

The Conservative Party of Canada acted under the law, as it understood it at that time. When it was clear that Elections Canada had changed its interpretation of the law, the Conservative Party had adjusted its practices in the 2008 election campaign.

Another very important fact is that these were Conservative dollars, donated by Conservative supporters. The funds were used for Conservative ads by Conservative candidates.

I also want to bring to members' attention a story from the Ottawa Citizen dating back to July 2008.

In 2008, the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister read into the record an email. I would like to read into the record that email from the Ottawa Citizen of July 18, 2008. It states:

Hi Phyllis, We are told by communications folks in BC that these were radio ads with the Candidate's personal tag on the end—therefore a local expense to be reported under the Candidate's expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign—in the case of VanEast, $2,612.00. The good news is that the Federal Party will transfer $2,600 to the Federal Riding Association as we agreed to pay for the ads. We hope that you are able to squeeze this in under the ceiling. Some expenses are not considered election expenses subject to spending limits, such as fundraising costs. Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think we have a problem.

This email was signed by the federal party bookkeeper. However, it was not an email from the Conservative Party but an internal email from the New Democratic Party.

The Phyllis in question was Phyllis Loke, the official agent to the NDP MP for Vancouver East. They were both involved in a transfer of funds that exactly paralleled the practice that the Conservative Party engaged in for advertising purposes. This was common practice.

The email in question was from the NDP national party bookkeeper, Lucy Ladouceur. She--