Wayne Easter

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am most pleased to answer that question because this is the kind of game that the members on that side play. They talk from their propaganda notes from the PMO and, in trying to create a defence for themselves, they change the topic.

This was not transferred in and out illegally. The moneys we are talking about here in the 2006 election fund—

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

My apologies, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Simpson goes on to say:

On TV and on platforms, the two parties were battling, ad for ad, charge for charge. But as the campaign wore on, the Conservatives were running out of money, or at least money they could spend under election financing rules. They needed every dollar they could find to buy more ads.

What did they do? They had to find a scheme to get money. They had overspent in the first few weeks of the campaign. They had a week left to go so they had to find a scheme by which to get around the election rules.

Jeffrey Simpson went on to say:

It was, as the appeal court said, a “scheme.” Now the director of public prosecutions has charged four Conservatives, including two senators, with having organized the scheme.

I think Mr. Simpson sums it up pretty well in the Globe and Mail article.

The CBC also reported:

The plan was apparently hatched in the midst of the campaign as the national Conservative Party was reaching its legal spending limit of about $18 million, but wanted to spend more on advertising.

The CBC report went on to provide a brief example of how the scam, this money-laundering scheme, worked. It said:

Individual Conservative candidates had their own legal election expense limit of about $80,000, and lots of them weren't planning to spend anything close to that amount.

We all know that a lot of candidates do not spend close to their amount.

To understand what happened next, I will take the case of one Ontario Conservative candidate. Her campaign had not spent anything near the allowable $80,000 limit for the riding. The party sent her campaign $29,999 on the strict condition her campaign immediately transfer the same amount of money back to the national party. In return, the party issued an invoice showing her campaign had just bought local advertising worth $29,999. The party used the money to continue its mostly national advertising blitz, while the local candidate later got to claim a 60% rebate on her expenses from the government. In her case, that meant a cheque for $18,000 from taxpayers for local advertising that never happened.

This was achieved by sending the money to the riding, having the candidate or duly appointed officer sign off on the receipt of the money and then immediately send the money back to the national campaign. By doing this, the Conservatives were able to exceed the legally mandated spending ceiling under the Elections Canada Act in their attempt to buy the election. However, even worse, through that they were able to fill the coffers of some of the local riding associations with funds being returned for expenses at the local level that never happened. There is no question about it. The fact is that this is plainly illegal. It is election fraud, short and simple. The Conservative Party has been up to election fraud.

What do the Conservatives do now? As they usually do, they try to change the subject. They organize a public relations campaign claiming that this was an administrative error, an accounting error, and nothing more. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is no accounting error. This is no administrative error. This is electoral fraud. All we need to do is walk down that hall and we will see two of the people who have been rewarded for coming up with this scheme and have been able to buy that national advertising during the last week of the campaign. We will find down that hall two senators who were involved in this scheme. We will find two others at the senior levels of the Conservative Party who were involved in this scheme of electoral fraud.

For the Prime Minister to stand and talk about law and order, it is not about laws for everybody else and different laws for him and his party. Everybody should have to respect the Elections Canada Act and that party obviously did not and they have been charged as such.

The Conservatives claimed, as did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, that the party had every right to send money to local campaigns. It is interesting how he fails to mention that the requirement for the ridings getting the money was that they were obligated to kick it back to the centre. I wonder why? I wonder why the parliamentary secretary forgot to place this part of the transaction on the record in the House that they were obligated to kick it back. That is the catch. It was certainly a scheme that was cooked up by the party in order to raise money for its election campaign.

We need to bear in mind that the Prime Minister, long before he was elected, attempted to challenge the manner in which campaigns had been financed. He has never been one who has accepted the rules that the rest of the country live by. As president of the NCC, he found himself on the wrong side of a Supreme Court ruling which found against his efforts to undermine our election financing laws.

It is apparent that we have a Prime Minister who believes that if he does not consider the laws legitimate he can ignore them. However, he and the party are devious enough to attempt to hide it. There is a lack of moral courage at the very core of that party, not to mention integrity.

Let us consider for a moment two things. The first is that the Conservatives have, by practising this fraud, bought themselves an election. The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled unanimously with three judges against the government and its lunatic scheme that this is an administrative matter.

In closing, I will make on last point. The Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Elections, the director of Public Prosecutions and an entire three judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeal have now taken action against the Conservatives in this election fraud.

It is time for the Government of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, to own up to the wrong it has done, to stop playing Pro games here and to kick out those two senators down the hall, fire those two Conservatives and let us get on with integrity and honesty in this place.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition day motion that reads, in part:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Conservative Party of Canada's “in and out” electoral financing scheme was an act of electoral fraud and represents an assault on the democratic principles upon which Parliament and our electoral system are based....

It goes on to name some consequences.

As others have said before me, this is about the in and out scheme of the Conservative Party of Canada that occurred in the 2006 election campaign which fraudulently took money and transferred it around. I will get into more detail on that later.

From a high of $49,999 to one riding to slightly over $2,000 in another, and some 67 ridings in all, it was a major scheme to get around the national advertising rules. The plan was simple enough. It was to send money to individual ridings for the purpose of buying advertising, only the advertising being purchased was for the national not the local campaign.

In an article today in the Globe and Mail, Jeffrey Simpson summed this up probably better than anyone. He backgrounds it in about half of the article and I will quote what he had to say in looking back at that election campaign. He says:

Yes, the Liberals were wounded, but they weren't done. They were running their own nasty TV ads warning darkly of Mr. Harper's hidden agenda.

We certainly know that is true. There is certainly one of those.

[Points of Order, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, your standing to give me that ruling makes my point. The Prime Minister is branding the Government of Canada as something other than the Government of Canada. I, nor my colleagues, nor even government members can stand in the House and quote directly from a release by a government department. This is wrong.

The Government of Canada is not an entity of one man. I would ask you to take these comments, Mr. Speaker, and your ruling in all seriousness in terms of the point of order raised by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

[Points of Order, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of the point of order raised yesterday by my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie. I am worried that maybe the House does not get the seriousness of the point of order, and I want to add to it.

The member's point was that members' names cannot be used in the House, and we understand the reason for that. However, the Prime Minister has changed the branding of the name of the Government of Canada to something other than the Government of Canada.

Since December this new name has been showing up more and more in government documents. I personally see the new name as an affront to Canadians because they believe the government is not for one man, but that government is by the people for the people.

I as a member will not be able to quote that name in the House because of the rules. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, and I expect you will cut me off and I understand why. I have a release from the Canada Revenue Agency which outlines an announcement in Sault Ste. Marie. The headline of the release is, “Harper government standing up”.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I know you are standing to cut me off.

[Political Financing, March 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, could the parliamentary secretary get to answering the question?

The audacity of the government is simply astounding. No one is better at saying one thing and doing another than the super cop from Vaughan.

This month is fraud prevention month. The slogan is: “Recognize it, Report it, Stop it”. Meanwhile in Vaughan, where tens of thousands of dollars were used to commit election fraud, the new MP praises fraud prevention.

Will the member do the right thing and tell the Conservative regime to repay the dirty money?

[Political Financing, March 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Malpeque, the Conservatives used the in and out scam to funnel money to use for national ads, overspent the limit and tried to buy the election. Bad enough.

Now we know that other ridings in Atlantic Canada not only used this scam but have already received refunds for it, in Halifax and in Humber, Newfoundland.

Will the Prime Minister order these two Conservative riding associations to pay back the thousands of dollars they owe Canadians in dirty money?

[Roy F. Dickieson, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Roy F. Dickieson who passed away on February 17 at 91.

Roy was predeceased by his lifelong sweetheart Esther, after nearly 65 years of marriage. They had a family of six and, wow, 18 grandchildren and 18 great-grandchildren.

Living his lifetime in New Glasgow, P.E.I., Roy was a dedicated church and community member who truly loved and respected his fellow man. He was a founder of many organizations: New Glasgow 4-H, Central Queen Funeral Co-op and Farmers Helping Farmers, to name a few. His passion was dairy cattle, especially Holsteins. While building a productive herd, he was an avid spectator, participant and judge at cattle shows as far away as England. Roy offered his time and expertise, from coaching hockey and being local school trustee to various directorships. He touched many lives.

Canada has lost a true role model. May we in the House extend our sympathies.

[International Co-operation, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am used to the drive-by smears of the House leader.

The Minister of International Cooperation fails to stand up in the House and answer to the Canadian people, yet she continues to arrive on the Hill in her limo and accept all the parliamentary perks, cars, drivers, staff, a hotline to the PMO. This is the direct opposite of ministerial accountability.

Will she now accept responsibility, do the right thing, and resign?

[International Co-operation, February 17th, 2011]

That was some answer, Mr. Speaker--