On Monday in question period, Conservative MP and parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, Pierre Poilievre, handled questions about the charges levelled by Elections Canada at four Conservative party members over their role in the “in-and-out” election finance scandal of 2006. The prime minister was absent from the House.

Last week, when the story broke, CBC’s Kady O’Malley published the internal Conservative Party talking points on the resurgent dispute with Elections Canada. Here is some of what it said:

Subject: Ongoing 5-year Legal Dispute with Elections Canada

Yesterday Elections Canada laid administrative charges in the ongoing Regional Media Buy case against the Conservative Party and four individuals who were party officials in 2006 (Doug Finley, Irving Gerstein, Michael Donison, Susan Kehoe) arising from disagreements about expense allocations from the 2006 Election campaign.

Our position is clear:

• We are not surprised by the decision to lay administrative charges. These are not criminal charges. Elections Canada has been pushing for these charges for nearly two years.

• This is another step in the long-running accounting dispute with Elections Canada — we have been arguing about this for nearly five years now.

• On January 18, 2010 the federal court clearly ruled in favour of the Conservative Party’s position on this specific issue.

• We are disappointed that Elections Canada filed these administrative charges after losing in federal court and not waiting for the appeal court’s decision in that matter.

• Our Party plays by the same rules as everyone else. We followed those rules.

• Our position on this issue has been consistent and has been validated by the federal court:

• We did not exceed the spending cap in the 2006 election

• Both the Liberals and NDP used regional media buys in the 2006 election; and the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois all executed fund transfers in both 2004 and 2006

• We were completely upfront in all of our filings about how we allocated these expenses

• We followed the rules, relying on Election Canada’s own Handbook. Elections Canada changed the rules in their own Handbook after the election.

Please refer to these talking points when speaking with local media and refer all other media enquiries to Fred DeLorey.

Poilievre rose 11 times on Monday to field accusations about the charges laid by Elections Canada. Below, iPolitics has compiled the questions that were directed at the government by opposition members, and Poilievre’s answers to those in English.

The pattern is noticeable, and seems to highlight what Maclean’s columnist Aaron Wherry called the “yawning gap” that is the modern House of Commons — a place that is at the centre of Canadian political debate based only on its geography, rather than its substantive contribution to political conversation.

As Robert Asselin, associate director of the Graduate School of International and Public Affairs at the University of Ottawa, told iPolitics on Tuesday, it is easy for the executive branch in Canada to govern without paying much attention to the House of Commons. That’s a problem, he said.

“The role of the House of Commons is to make the executive accountable, and by all accounts, they are not able to do that,” he said, noting not only Poilievre’s performance in the House on Monday, but also the fact that House leader John Baird regularly stands to answer for Minister Oda about the Kairos funding controversy, despite the fact that questions about it are not directed at him.

“This is not accountability or democracy,” Asselin said.

From Question Period, Monday, Feb. 28:

Michael Ignatieff, Liberal:

Mr. Speaker, last week four members of the prime minister’s inner circle were accused of serious allegations in relation to Canada’s election law. These are serious criminal charges and they carry with them jail time.

At the same time, this is the result of years of investigation by Elections Canada and the public prosecutor. The question for the Prime Minister and the government is, do they not understand that playing fast and loose with Canada’s election law undermines Canadian democracy?

Pierre Poilievre:

Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a five year old accounting dispute. Fortunately, the federal court has ruled in favour of the Conservative Party and against Elections Canada.

Ignatieff:

Mr. Speaker, the government is playing fast and loose with the facts. This is not a debate. The party opposite is facing criminal charges and jail time if it is convicted.

It forms part of a pattern. When the government faces tough questions, it shuts Parliament down. When a minister misleads the House, the Prime Minister actually gets up and applauds her. When Conservative Party operatives are faced with serious criminal charges, it turns it into an argument with Elections Canada.

It is not an argument. This is an accusation of fraud. Why does the government not understand that this is undermining Canadian democracy?

Poilievre:

Mr. Speaker, allow me to correct my Hon. friend. In fact this is an administrative dispute that dates back five years.

Fortunately, I would inform the Leader of the Opposition, that the federal court has ruled in favour of the Conservative Party and against Elections Canada in this dispute.

•••

NDP leader Jack Layton:

Mr. Speaker, this in and out business is the epitome of the Conservative Party hypocrisy when it comes to the whole issue of accountability, open government and broken promises.

It is time for the prime minister to take some responsibility here. He cannot pretend to be tough on crime when he has his own minions out there wilfully breaking the very laws that are the underpinning of our democracy which speaks about fairness in election campaigns. It is another example of why so many Canadians think that Ottawa is broken.

When is the Prime Minister going to show some leadership and tell the senators who are fundraisers to get out of the Senate and get out of–

Poilievre:

Allow me to start, Mr. Speaker, by thanking my hon. colleague for his question. This of course is a five year accounting dispute. Fortunately the Federal Court has already ruled in favour of the Conservative Party and against Elections Canada on this very question.

•••

Francie Scarpaleggia, Liberal

Mr. Speaker, the 2006 Conservative campaign in Lac-Saint-Louis was among those implicated in the in and out scandal that has led to criminal charges against two of the Prime Minister’s Senate cronies and two other Conservative Party operatives.

When it comes to Lac-Saint-Louis, this is how it goes: First, the party re-channels money through an elaborate scheme, then the Prime Minister funds a candidate’s campaign through a half-million dollar a year Senate package.

Why does the Prime Minister show such contempt for the people of Lac-Saint-Louis?

Poilievre:

Mr. Speaker, I regret that my hon. colleague has misrepresented the nature of this dispute. In fact it is an administrative dispute and not as he has characterized it.

This is in fact a five year old accounting dispute. Fortunately, the Federal Court has already ruled in favour of the Conservative Party and against Elections Canada in this very matter.