OTTAWA - Liberal MP Marlene Jennings has become the poster child for Conservative claims that other parties have indulged in the same in-and-out financial transactions that sparked last week's police raid on Tory headquarters.
But the Montreal MP has produced cancelled cheques and bank statements to prove she's never participated in anything remotely like the scheme that's landed the Tories in hot water with Canada's elections watchdog.
"It's not true at all what they're saying," said Jennings.
Conservatives have repeatedly pointed at Jennings to bolster their argument that Elections Canada has unfairly targeted their party.
Elections Canada alleges the Tories orchestrated a plan during the 2006 election campaign in which dozens of candidates improperly claimed advertising expenses that should have been declared by the national party. The scheme allowed the party to exceed its national spending limit by $1.3 million, says the independent watchdog, and enabled 67 candidates to claim rebates on expenses they didn't actually incur.
The Tory party systematically sent money to candidates who immediately returned the money to the party, ostensibly as payment for their share of national radio and TV advertisements.
Elections commissioner William Corbett is investigating the transactions and recently got a search warrant to have the RCMP enter Conservative headquarters last week.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, are suing Elections Canada for refusing to issue rebates on the suspect advertising expenses filed by individual candidates.
In an affidavit filed by party officials in the civil suit, Jennings is one of about 100 Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs cited as having engaged in similar campaign spending tactics that Elections Canada found perfectly acceptable.
The Tories point to a series of transfers of $16,132.93 between the party, Jennings and her riding association in 2004. They contend that Jennings paid an invoice for $16,132.93 and claimed it as a campaign expense even though it appears that the party - identified only as "Liberal" on the financial return - eventually transferred an identical amount back to her riding association.
But Jennings said the transactions are easily explained. Before the 2004 election writ was dropped, her association bought personalized posters and other material worth $16,132.93 from the party's Quebec wing. Once the election was under way, her campaign team then paid the riding association for the material.
The Nov. 2, 2004 transfer to the association from "Liberal" was in fact the payment from Jennings' official agent.
Jennings produced cancelled cheques and a campaign bank statement proving her version of events.
"I have not received one penny from either the national party or the Quebec wing of the party," she said.
Conservative spokesman Ryan Sparrow was unmoved by Jennings' explanation.
Paying for posters - even posters bearing Jenning's picture - that are provided by the party is the same thing as Conservative candidates paying for advertising produced by their party, he said. The fact that the Conservative party gave candidates the money in the first place is immaterial since transfers between parties and candidates is perfectly legal, Sparrow added.
"What Liberal party candidates did is exactly what the Conservative candidates did," said Sparrow.
Elections Canada spokesman John Enright said Jennings' 2004 campaign expense report was reviewed and approved by the agency.
"Elections Canada's review of the return is completed and we see no reason to reopen it at this time," he said.
Indeed, the agency has reviewed the vast majority of the candidates listed in the Tory affidavit as having indulged in similar financial transactions
"(If) we've reviewed it, it's good to go," Enright said.
