– no answers of course, but at least some the questions are getting better.

First up from yesterdays Hansard the following from Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, recently, the members for Toronto Centre, Willowdale and Vancouver Quadra asked voters to send them to Ottawa to represent their interests in the House of Commons.

 

Last night, these three Liberal MPs abstained on a matter of confidence on the economy. Even though they were elected just weeks ago, already they are refusing to do their job to stand and vote. Who will stand for Toronto Centre, Willowdale and Vancouver Quadra if not their MPs?

 

Canadians expect that those to whom they give that privilege will carry out the duties and responsibilities of elected members of Parliament, the simplest of which is the duty and responsibility to vote. It is clear that these Liberal MPs are more interested in scheming to regain power than representing their constituents in the House of Commons.

If Anders had said “position of privilege” he probably would have been more accurate but that aside, this is yet another case where Liberal MP’s have been told by the Party how, or in this case “if”, they will vote on an economic matter that more than likely affects the financial well being of their constituents - and like all good party members they toed the party line and did what they were told.

Why so many people actively support a supposedly democratic system where those who are elected are more accountable to the party they belong to than to the (greatest minority of) constituents who elected them remains a mystery to me.

— and from the In and Out channel we see the following exchange

Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the in and out scheme is about campaign spending limits. The Supreme Court said that in a democracy these limits are critical to level the playing field. So there are national and local limits and neither can be used to exceed the limits to the other.

 

Elections Canada says that the Conservatives broke the law by more than $1 million because the money the national party sent to local campaigns had to be sent right back, no option, no choice, so it was never out of national control, never local.

 

When will the Prime Minister acknowledge this is why the RCMP raided the Conservatives and no other party?

 

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 2004, the Liberal Party made a transfer to the member for Don Valley West’s local campaign for $5,000. One week later, the member for Don Valley West’s local campaign made a transfer to the Liberal Party for $5,000: $5,000 in and $5,000 out. In, out, where is Elections Canada?

 

Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister’s version is right, a party could send all 308 ridings their local limit, $70,000 or more, get back the same amount, doubling what is available to the national campaign, doubling their legal spending limit, making what is national local simply by laundering back and forth. It makes no sense. The result is a raid which brought the RCMP in, in, so taxpayers would not be fraudulently out, out, more than $1 million. In, out, that is the real in and out is it not?

 

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I guess that imitation is the highest form of flattery. On July 14, 2004, the Liberal Party made two transfers to the Rick Limoges local campaign for $4,000 and $5,000. One day later, the local campaign of Rick Limoges made two transfers back to the Liberal Party for $4,000 and then $5,000. It looks like the goalie has been pulled out and the puck has gone in the net.

Cynic that I am I just gotta wonder, if Poilievre’s numbers and dates are correct, what did go on during the Liberal portion of the campaign and why EC isn’t investigating that….. if everything was completely above board one would think that the Liberals would clearly state “this is what happened, it is completely within the rules, and that is why we are not being investigated” as opposed to simply stating “quit asking us questions, you’re the ones being investigated” - don’t you think that would have a lot of propaganda value?