Paul Szabo

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member has indicated his party wants to respect the law and will fully co-operate with the police agencies which have charged four people in this regard.

During the hearings before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Marc Mayrand, appeared before us and he was asked if anyone in the Conservative Party, in its fundraising wing, in its electoral campaign offices, ever contacted Elections Canada to ask whether the party's proposed scheme was legal under the Canada Elections Act. His response was “no”. All communications, voice as well as written, were checked, but there was no evidence whatsoever that the Conservative Party had even asked whether or not its scheme was going to be within the law of the land.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the theme is expanding a little but I know that members are not going to waste the House's time.

Speaking about wasting the House's time, from January 2008 until March 2008, this matter was before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is supposed to look at electoral issues; it is in its purview. That committee was filibustered by the Conservatives, who did not want to deal with the issue. In fact, that committee did not meet after March. For six months it did no work because the government did not want an examination done of what actually happened.

The issue then went to the ethics committee and witnesses were called. The Conservatives told witnesses not to appear. Witnesses were subpoenaed and the Conservatives told them to ignore the subpoenas.

The question for the member is this: If the Conservative Party believes this is just an administrative dispute, why has it not co-operated fully with Parliament, with its committees, with Elections Canada and the prosecutor to make sure that all of the facts are there so that we can resolve this issue and get on with the business of the House? That is what we should be doing.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's conclusion is the one that I hope and I know many members of this place hope we would focus on. The matter before us is just one example of where an abuse of power has led to acts that appear to be illegal when the Federal Court of appeal says that the laws were breached.

The member is also well aware that it is not just that the Conservative Party in the 2006 election overspent by $1.2 million. It is also that the candidates who had these expenses improperly transferred down to them received rebates on them. Some of those ridings actually received the rebate before the audits were complete and the breach of the elections law was discovered. The government has refused to co-operate with Elections Canada. This is just another example of the Conservatives not wanting to get to the bottom of it. They think it is an administrative difficulty but there is no evidence that they have taken any action whatsoever to help the House clean up this mess, because they cannot do it.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is self-evident. It has to do with a particular case. The reason it is before us also has to do with the fact that it is reflective of other cases.

Let me remind the House that Marty Cheliak, the RCMP chief superintendent who supported the long gun registry was canned. Linda Keen, nuclear safety, was canned. Adrian Measner, the Wheat Board president, was canned. Pat Stogran, the veterans ombudsman, was canned. Sheridan Scott, Competition Bureau, was canned. Steve Sullivan, victims of crime ombudsman, was canned. Paul Kennedy was canned. Bernard Shapiro, ethics commissioner, was canned. Munir Sheikh, chief statistician at StatsCan, was canned. I have about seven or eight more, but I think members get the point.

The government has demonstrated by its actions or inaction that the Prime Minister is now at a point where he is abusing the power of being in government. He has decided that he is above the rules and above the law.

In this regard, the Federal Court of Appeal in a unanimous decision has found that the Conservatives have broken the law, the national party candidates, and indeed has charged four people.

I wonder if the member has any further examples of the abuse of power by the Conservative government.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, when the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics held hearings on this matter in the summer of 2008, the committee had subpoenaed 31 witnesses who were Conservative candidates and had participated in the in and out scandal. It came out that the Conservative Party instructed them to disregard the subpoenas and not appear. Then the government called an election just to shut it down.

If this were an administrative disagreement, why has the government failed to show openness, accountability and transparency on this matter? If this is just an administrative disagreement, why not fully co-operate?

The reason, and I hope the member will have an opinion, is that the Conservatives were caught just like they were in all of the other incidents where the government has been accused. It is not simply about this one particular event, but the motion is about the character, honesty, credibility and accountability of the government which it has failed on all counts.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I want to give the member an opportunity to affirm her position.

The Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada do a rigorous review of all elections. With regard to the situation that occurred in 2006, the Conservative Party put money in and immediately took it out, and then transferred its own expenses into a campaign so it could spend more on its national advertising campaign. It was a scheme. The Chief Electoral Officer said that no other parties or candidates were found to have violated the elections law in that regard. I would ask the member if that is her understanding.

Also, with regard to the Conservative member who said that one court was for and another was against, in fact it was a unanimous decision of the appeal court that said the Conservative Party broke the rules and was in breach of the Canadian Elections Act.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I hope the member will offer to table his binder. I think it would be helpful.

The member has always said that this was just an administrative disagreement. However, the Federal Court of Appeal did not see it that way and, in fact, unanimously ruled that the Conservatives had broken the Canada Elections law.

To further show their lack of good faith, between January and March 2008, the Conservatives filibustered an effort to look into this matter at the procedure and House affairs committee, to the point where the chair was shown non-confidence and thrown out, the committee never met for the remainder of the time and then they called an election to shut it down. The matter went to the ethics committee. The ethics committee subpoenaed 30 witnesses. What did the Conservatives do? They told the witnesses not to appear, to ignore the subpoenas.

If this is just an administrative disagreement, why can the government not be open, transparent and accountable on all of the facts related to this matter?

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise on this point of order for the third time. When members of his party start giggling about how he is wasting the time of the House, which is their intent, we have to take this seriously at this time. We will have the entire day filled with these matters, which have nothing to do with the motion.

The Chair will have to take a stand on this and ensure that the time of the House is used debating a motion properly before the House.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a prima facie case the member is making. All motions do not deal with all issues. They have to address something. The member continues on the economy and other issues that the motion does not address. He has admitted it in his statements. We have to remain relevant to the motion now before the House.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This morning I had an opportunity to review the minutes of the procedure and House affairs committee from January 31 through March 28, all of which led to a filibuster. The filibuster dealt with totally irrelevant information.

I want to stop it right at the beginning. If the member will not address the motion before the floor, then he should yield the floor. Talking about jobs and the economy is outside the scope of the motion now before the House.