What is more important? One Liberal MP? Or 129 Conservative candidates and official agents, including 17 MPs, several cabinet ministers and the central Conservative campaign, overspending election limits by $1,200,000? I think the question answers itself. The Conservative In and Out Scandal is a story of massive proportion. If it should turn out that they did break the Canada Elections Act, it would be, by far, the largest political scandal in Canadian history. We have never, ever seen a situation where more than one or two MPs were implicated at the same time. Indeed, if the allegations are proven, it could result in the deregistration of the Conservative Party of Canada and the liquidation of its assets.The first Conservative response was to deny the existence of the scandal. Elections Canada has already ruled that local expenses claimed under 451(2)(b) of the Canada Elections Act were not local expenses and refused to order reimbursement of said expenses under 465(1)(a). That means that the Chief Electoral Officer, an officer of Parliament, has determined that the local Conservative campaigns did not comply with the requirements of the Canada Elections Act. The Conservatives are in the process of appealing this decision in court, yet somehow they claim that they "did not break the law". That may turn out to be true, but at this point in time Elections Canada has ruled that they did break the law.
The next Conservative response was to claim that they have not committed any crimes. Under section 497(1)(u), contravention of section 451(2)(b) is a "strict liability offence". That means that if the law was broken, even without intent, the person is still guilty of a crime. According to section 500(1), conviction for this offence can result in a fine of $1,000 and a three month jail term. It is true that nobody has been charged with a criminal offence. However, if the Conservative appeal of the Elections Canada ruling fails, then I would not be surprised to see criminal charges under this section of the Canada Elections Act. Imagine what would happen if over 60 Conservative official agents were sentenced to three months in jail. Those are the stakes of this scandal.
Yet that is not all. If the courts uphold the ruling of Elections Canada, then those expenses were still spent. If they were not local campaign expenses, then they were national campaign expenses. Section 422(1) sets national spending limits during election campaigns. Section 423(1) prohibits overspending. Section 429 requires financial reporting by political parties following elections. Section 431 makes it an offence to submit a false return. Section 497(1)(l) and (q.01) make it a strict liability offence for the party's Chief Agent to exceed election spending limits or file an incomplete return. According to section 497(3)(g) and (m)(ii), it is a separate offence to "wilfully" overspend or provide a false return. Punishment for the strict liability offences is the same as for the local agents. According to 500(3), if the Conservative Party's Official Agent is convicted for wilfully filing a false return, then he is liable for up to a $5,000 fine and five years in jail. Those are the stakes of this scandal.
Yet even that is not all. If the Conservative Official Agent is convicted under 497(3)(m)(ii), wilfully providing false or misleading statements in an election return, such as failing to disclose $1.2 million in spending, then section 501(3)(i) and 501(2) allow additional punishment:
2) If a registered party, its chief agent or registered agent or one of its officers has been convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (3), the court may, having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed under this Act, by order,
(a) direct the Chief Electoral Officer to deregister the party;
(b) if it directs deregistration under paragraph (a), direct the chief agent — or another person specified by the court — to liquidate the party's assets; and
(c) if it directs liquidation under paragraph (b), direct the financial agent of each registered association — or another person specified by the court — to liquidate the registered association's assets.
So how do the Tories respond to the threat of having their party deregistered for possibly overspending by $1,200,000 during the 2006 election and failing to submit a proper election return? They claim that it is far more important that one Liberal MP's chief agent might have filed a misleading election return. Most certainly, the accusations against Mr. Blair's campaign are very serious. That is why Stéphane Dion was right to force his resignation from the Liberal caucus. However, that is nothing compared to the In and Out Scandal. This IS a scandal of historic proportion and it should be reported as such. We Liberals are not going to give up as long as the Elections Canada rulings stand.
