# RCMP raid Conservative party headquarters over election matter



## Rodahn (15 Apr 2008)

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n041527A.xml

OTTAWA - RCMP officers raided Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa on Tuesday at the request of Elections Canada. 

Elections commissioner William Corbett asked the Mounties to execute a search warrant, but officials wouldn't say why. 

"I can confirm that the commissioner of Elections Canada has requested the assistance of the RCMP in the execution of a search warrant," said spokesman John Enright. 

"The commissioner has no further comment." 

Elections Canada and the Conservative party have been engaged in a protracted legal battle over alleged campaign spending irregularities from the 2006 election. 

At least two Mounties searched party offices on the 12th floor of a downtown building as camera crews filmed outside. A short time later, two officers rolled a cart full of boxes and bags into a 17th-floor mailroom. 

Andre Thouin, an elections official, left later with a box of documents. 

Corbett launched an investigation in April 2007 into $1.2-million worth of Conservative election television and radio advertising that was challenged by Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand. 

Mayrand refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for part of the advertising money when they claimed it as local expenses. The ads were produced for the party's national campaign, which has a separate limit for election spending. 

The Conservatives insist the transactions were legal but Elections Canada disagrees and opposition parties have labelled the scheme outright fraud. 

Some campaign officials told the elections watchdog that the scheme was referred to as the "in-and-out" plan. 

Under the plan, party headquarters would send as much as $50,000 in cash to candidates across the country. The candidates would then give the money back to headquarters, claiming they were paying for advertising. 

In some cases, the advertising was virtually identical to national ads, the only difference being a tag line that listed a series of local candidates. 

RCMP Cpl. Jean Hainey said the Mounties were merely assisting: "It is not an RCMP investigation. We're there to assist, but that's it." 

He would not provide any other details. 

No one from the party was immediately available for comment and phone calls to the headquarters went unanswered. 

An aide to the party's lawyer, Paul Lepsoe, said he was in a meeting and unable to return calls. 

Election Canada's lawyer, Barbara McIssac, was also unavailable. 

The Prime Minister's Office referred questions to the party. 

Soon after Corbett launched his investigation, the Conservatives went to Federal Court in an attempt to force Mayrand to reimburse the expenses to 67 Conservative candidates. 

That case has not yet reached a hearing stage, with the party and Elections Canada still filing evidentiary briefs. 

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the raid is a result of the Conservatives' "culture of secrecy." 

"Mr. Harper promised transparency, a different kind of open government, and yet when it comes to something this fundamental, the doors have apparently been closed to Elections Canada and they've had to call in the police. 

"It just shows you why you can't trust the government of Stephen Harper."


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Apr 2008)

"opposition parties have labelled the scheme outright fraud. "

The pot has called the kettle black, me thinks.....
Hell hath no fury like a Liberal scorned.....


----------



## Yrys (15 Apr 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> "opposition parties have labelled the scheme outright fraud. "
> 
> The pot has called the kettle black, me thinks.....
> Hell hath no fury like a Liberal scorned.....



Opposition seem to try to make that a criminal matter also, as a MP of the opposition 
asked, on the "question period" if the conservatives remembers that RCMP doesn't investigate civil matter
(trying to make the search warrant assistance into something that is in the criminal realm laws, not the civil laws).


----------



## Rodahn (15 Apr 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> "opposition parties have labelled the scheme outright fraud. "
> 
> The pot has called the kettle black, me thinks.....
> Hell hath no fury like a Liberal scorned.....



Ummm just a small point, but the article does state "Opposition parties" not the Liberals. It may very well be one, or all of them that are stating such. 

I can see this becoming a much larger problem for the Conservatives though, based upon the results of the investigation.


----------



## Teflon (15 Apr 2008)

If anyone knows scandels and fraud it would be the liberals, they have so much expearience at it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2008)

This does real, measurable damage to the Conservative _*brand*_ and to Harper's reputation for honesty.

It doesn't matter if there is fire; the smoke is enough for the press and the public. Remember how the RCMP statement re: investigating Ralph Goodale and unnamed Finance officials did real, measurable damage to the Liberal campaign.

This can, probably will die down, maybe it will even go away, but it should reduce Harper's enthusiasm for an election.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2008)

Two Mounties showing a warrant and asking for, and receiving documentation, hardly constitues a raid in my books. Yes it looks bad, but it's more someone playing politics methinks. Harper's not stupid. I'm pretty sure the CPC feels they were on pretty solid legal footing for the decision. We'll have to wait till the investigation shows. I'm not going to speculate and cast any dispersions, until something more concrete is proven.

As been shown many other times, the opposition parties and MSM should do the same, else they may end up wearing this one too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2008)

However, I do find the highlighted portions interesting. Camera crews, including the liberals, were already there when the warrant arrived. Yep, no politics being played here :

The Mounties also didn't execute the warrant, the Elections Commisioner did. The Queen's Cowboys were only there to assist. Pretty standard, I think, when non LEO execute a warrant.

The warrant thing may be a little blown out of proportion also. I think if the Elections Commisioner thinks he has Reasonable and Probable Grounds to procede, he can no longer gather information from the party premises without the warrant. So it's just procedure, so the evidence doesn't get tossed from the trial. Not really sure if federal law is the same as provincial, but it makes sense.

This is starting to sound like so much hyperboyle when it's picked apart. Taken in whole, with a quick read, it sounds like the crime of the century (we know it's not). Reading between the lines, the parts do not equal the sum.



> Mounties search Tory headquarters
> Last Updated: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 | 12:09 PM ET Comments89Recommend231CBC News
> RCMP searched Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa on Tuesday at the request of Elections Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rodahn (16 Apr 2008)

No matter what slant one puts on this there is a problem for the conservative party, based upon the non partisan, unbiased investigation by the elections commissioner...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> No matter what slant one puts on this there is a problem for the conservative party, based upon the *non partisan, unbiased * investigation by the elections commissioner...



So I wonder who leaked he'd be serving the warrant, so all the press, including the libs could be there? I know when I serve a warrant or summons, no one knows exactly when I'm doing it until I show up at the door.

 I suppose I could also check, but I'm too lazy. Who appointed the Election Commisioner, and when?


----------



## Gimpy (16 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I suppose I could also check, but I'm too lazy. Who appointed the Election Commisioner, and when?



http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=612522

Former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley in September 06. Kingsley served as the Chief Electoral Officer from 1990 to 2007.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Apr 2008)

No doubt that there's a lot of propoganda and spin being tossed into this to make the Conservtive party look as bad as possible while the opportunity exists...


----------



## Gimpy (16 Apr 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> No doubt that there's a lot of propoganda and spin being tossed into this to make the Conservtive party look as bad as possible while the opportunity exists...



Are you new to politics? Whenever there is a chance to make the opposition look bad it will be taken, whether by the Conservatives or Liberals. It would make Dion look like more of a fool if he didn't take this opportunity to do so when there "might" be some concrete evidence of wrong doing rather than condemning Harper and the Conservatives for grainy videotapes and unclear recordings.

No opposition party gains ground by letting possible indiscretions go by the wayside. The Conservatives criticize at every chance, the Liberals do, the NDP do, and the Bloc do.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So I wonder who leaked he'd be serving the warrant, so all the press, including the libs could be there? *I know when I serve a warrant or summons, no one knows exactly when I'm doing it until I show up at the door.*



EXACTLY what I was thinking.  Something stinks here, and it's not my socks!


----------



## armyvern (16 Apr 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> No matter what slant one puts on this there is a problem for the conservative party, based upon the non partisan, unbiased investigation by the elections commissioner...



Why??

I was searched at the airport in Ottawa last month. Didn't make me guilty of a single thing. I'm sure buddy was being pretty unbiased too in choosing me to search. Alas, my reputation is not ruined, nor have I been charged, nor do I expect to be. Then again -- no one from the Liberal party showed up in advance knowing that search of me was about to occur -- guess I don't make for good "unbiased" political fodder.  

This could actually be turned around by the Conservatives to be in their favour as just another Liberal ploy and attempt to "create scandal out of nothing" ... seeing as how (as Recceguy has already pointed out) that same "UNBIASED" Elections Commissioner just _happened_ to have dropped a _hint_ to the Liberals that they should maybe _want_ their cameras situated outside the door when the _'unbiased & unifluenced'_ warrant was served and the raid conducted. _Whatever_. The fact that they were there with their cameras removes absolutely ALL previous notions that I may have harboured about elections Canada and their supposed "unbiasedness".


----------



## Rodahn (16 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I suppose I could also check, but I'm too lazy. Who appointed the Election Commisioner, and when?



http://www.elections.ca/intro.asp?section=ceo&document=index&lang=e


----------



## Rodahn (16 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Why??
> 
> This could actually be turned around by the Conservatives to be in their favour as just another Liberal ploy and attempt to "create scandal out of nothing" ... seeing as how (as Recceguy has already pointed out) that same "UNBIASED" Elections Commissioner just _happened_ to have dropped a _hint_ to the Liberals that they should maybe _want_ their cameras situated outside the door when the _'unbiased & unifluenced'_ warrant was served and the raid conducted. _Whatever_. The fact that they were there with their cameras removes absolutely ALL previous notions that I may have harboured about elections Canada and their supposed "unbiasedness".



In my view, even the perception of wrong doing by the Conservatives, could have a negative impact on the undecided populace. 

Also it is conjecture that it was the Elections Commissioner Mr. Maynard, that announced the serving of the warrant, it may very well have been somebody from his staff, with or without his permission. We just do not know. If it were a member of the staff, then they should be looking for employment elsewhere IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Apr 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> In my view, even *the perception of wrong doing by the Conservatives, could have a negative impact on the undecided populace. * Also it is conjecture that it was the Elections Commissioner Mr. Maynard, that announced the serving of the warrant, it may very well have been somebody from his staff, with or without his permission. We just do not know. If it were a member of the staff, then they should be looking for employment elsewhere IMO.



...which sounds to me like the entire purpose of this action, but I am no political expert.  This, combined with other 'major' news of yesterday, will likely be jumped on by the Libs and crackheads NDP.   :

I hear the words scandal, cover up, and 'resignation of ____' starting and think I will avoid CTV/CBC today.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2008)

I can appreciate that some officials in Elections Canada (and some in the CPC) feel strongly about their ongoing dispute. It is common for people to go beyond being ‘seized’ with an issue and to get ‘captured’ by it. It is very likely that an official in Elections Canada believed, maybe still believes that the CPC is withholding documents that are germane to their dispute. Elections Canada has the legal authority to issue search warrants and they have an equal right to call upon the RCMP to assist them – just rather like a provincial attorney general can call out the troops.

It’s a civil lawsuit over a pretty substantial issue – for all political parties. Most people are convinced that election financing rules need to be clear – not open to _creative_ interpretation – and simple so that Canadians can understand that their money (because we do have publicly financed elections) is being used ‘properly.’ One can understand the _passions_ this case might arouse. 

What I have trouble with is: *who called the media?*

I had the same trouble when, in the middle of an election campaign, the RCMP named former Finance Minister Ralph Goodale in a letter to NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis. I didn’t (still don't) blame Ms. Wasylycia-Leis for making the letter public, nor do I blame the RCMP for answering her original request for information in a timely manner; but why, I continue to wonder, did former Commissioner  Giuliano Zaccardelli decide it was necessary to name Goodale? There was a proper investigation ongoing regarding someone in the Department of Finance who _*may*_ have done something wrong re: the income rusts fiasco, but was it really ‘proper’ to name Goodale?

There is no doubt in my mind that the Conservatives (the party in which I hold membership and which I support financially) benefited from the Zaccardelli letter. I also have no doubt that the Liberals benefit from the timely arrival off the press to publicize the execution of the search warrant.


----------



## sgf (16 Apr 2008)

Interesting Article in todays Globe



> A closer look at the 'in and out' scheme
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080416.wtorieslayer16/BNStory/Front

Hasnt been the best of weeks for Harper, I wonder how this latest is going to help his polling numbers


----------



## stegner (16 Apr 2008)

Who called the media?  I am not sure if the folks not living in Ottawa realize this but Conservative Party headquarters is right across the street from a lot of press outlets.   It could have been a matter as simple as media people pondering what the commotion was at CPC headquarters and why the police and Elections Canada where there.  This is a 5 minute walk from Liberal Party headquarters which could explain why they were there as someone in the media could have tipped them off.   This is but one explanation.     


This battle between Harper and Elections Canada has been going on for years (at least 8 years) and is not limited to the discussion of the in and out for national television ads.   Harper actually took Elections Canada to the Supreme Court before becoming PM when he was president of the NCC _Harper v.Canada_(Attorney_General)._  Needless to say, there is a lot of bad blood between Harper and Elections Canada.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2008)

OK?



> In the 2005-06 election campaign, the Conservatives' national headquarters transferred money to 67 local candidates - who immediately transferred it back as "payment" for campaign advertising.



 ???

Looks like a common business accounting practice to me.  The Government Bureaucracy conducts business like this on a daily basis.  They give a Federal Department a Budget to purchase things, which that Dept will in turn pay back to the Government through Supply and Services when they purchase something.

It is an "Accounting Practise" that probably found in many businesses to "account" for all their expenses and incomes.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Who called the media?  I am not sure if the folks not living in Ottawa realize this but Conservative Party headquarters is right across the street from a lot of press outlets.   It could have been a matter as simple as media people pondering what the commotion was at CPC headquarters and why the police and Elections Canada where there.  This is a 5 minute walk from Liberal Party headquarters which could explain why they were there as someone in the media could have tipped them off.   This is but one explanation.



You make it sound like the SWAT Team and a Brigade of Police Cars surrounded the building.  I am sure a couple of people in "Suits" would not attract the attention you are alluding to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Interesting Article in todays Globe
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080416.wtorieslayer16/BNStory/Front
> 
> Hasnt been the best of weeks for Harper, I wonder how this latest is going to help his polling numbers



Harper's worst week is still way better than Dion's best week. 

If you're going to add something to the thread, please do. The article was fine, at least make a credible and educated comment on it. If you're going to post drive-by one liners, that add nothing, find somewhere else to play.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Who called the media?  I am not sure if the folks not living in Ottawa realize this but Conservative Party headquarters is right across the street from a lot of press outlets.   It could have been a matter as simple as media people pondering what the commotion was at CPC headquarters and why the police and Elections Canada where there.  This is a 5 minute walk from Liberal Party headquarters which could explain why they were there as someone in the media could have tipped them off.   *This is but one explanation.*
> 
> 
> This battle between Harper and Elections Canada has been going on for years (at least 8 years) and is not limited to the discussion of the in and out for national television ads.   Harper actually took Elections Canada to the Supreme Court before becoming PM when he was president of the NCC _Harper v.Canada_(Attorney_General)._  Needless to say, there is a lot of bad blood between Harper and Elections Canada.



Explanation it may be, but it's so big a stretch as to not even be considered.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Apr 2008)

I also find it...ludicrous?  that the MSM is calling this a 'raid'.  :


----------



## stegner (16 Apr 2008)

> You make it sound like the SWAT Team and a Brigade of Police Cars surrounded the building.  I am sure a couple of people in "Suits" would not attract the attention you are alluding to.



As I said it is but one explanation.  It is not necessarily the best.


Ralph Goodale has explained that the problem is a little more complex. In fact, there are two separate issues.
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip45871#clip45871



> I also find it...ludicrous?  that the MSM is calling this a 'raid'.


What would you call it?  A minor execution of search warrant?


----------



## DBA (16 Apr 2008)

Only lawyers and bureaucrats could care so much about which pile of money was spent for what based on some arbitrary rules. Ads will allways have both national/local benefits and if they want to shuffle money or ad spends around to their benefit who cares.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Apr 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Ralph Goodale has explained that the problem is a little more complex.



 :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> What would you call it?  A minor execution of search warrant?



Exactly. I covered this above. It was not a raid.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Apr 2008)

DBA said:
			
		

> Only lawyers and bureaucrats could care so much about which pile of money was spent for what based on some arbitrary rules. Ads will allways have both national/local benefits and if they want to shuffle money or ad spends around to their benefit who cares.



No, I care,.....if there are rules in place for spending then I want those rules to be followed by those whom wish to govern us by the rules WE have put in place.

Having said that, I agree with RG, this was as much a photo-op between the Liberal Party, or others, and Elections Canada, that non-biased organization, than anything thats ever been done before.

THIS warrants an investigation......


EDIT: added in the 'or others' [ don't want to be like some in these forums who lose common sense when they put on the blinders]


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Apr 2008)

A raid??

.......are you telling me my ex-work partner _raids_ 25 to 30 places a day?? :

*Wow*, no wonder he looks tired......... 8)


----------



## stegner (16 Apr 2008)

> Only lawyers and bureaucrats could care so much about which pile of money was spent for what based on some arbitrary rules



Arbitrary?  Hardly.  That's like calling the National Defence Act a bunch of arbitrary rules.   This issue goes to the matter of following the rule of law (Elections Act) in Canada.  At this point we don't know who is in the right, Elections Canada or the Conservatives that will be decided in the courts.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2008)

There is a photo on page A4 of the print edition of today's _National Post_ showing a person in civilian clothes (winbeaker), identified as the RCMP officer who 'assisted' Elections Canada, knocking on the door of Site 1204 at 130 Albert Street, presumably to gain entry for the first time. He is being filmed by at least two TV cameras which must have arrived with him. It appears to me that someone alerted the media *before* the "raid" - otherwise, how did the cameras get there so very fast? 

So my question remains: *who called the media* and *why?*

---------
PS: I know the building/area quite well, for nearly ten years after I retired from he military my office used to be just steps away from 130 Albert. Marked RCMP cars on Albert Street would not merit any particular attention and, given the speed of elevators in that building and neighbouring buildings that house some media outlets, there is no way, none at all, that journalists saw something intersting and sprinted across the street. *They were tipped off.*


----------



## Rodahn (16 Apr 2008)

More information on the story.....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080416.TORIES16/TPStory/National


----------



## stegner (16 Apr 2008)

Mr. Campbell-on reflection you are correct.  In fact there are tons of RCMP in the area going to and from Parliament.   In fact,  you can't really walk down the Sparks Street Mall or Metcalfe without seeing a cruiser or an officer.   I withdraw my earlier comments on the media observing as they been proven false.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Apr 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> More information on the story.....
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080416.TORIES16/TPStory/National



"The Conservative Party initiated court action against Elections Canada some time ago on the advertising issue. I also would observe that tomorrow Elections Canada officials were scheduled to be examined by lawyers from the Conservative Party," Mr. Harper told Parliament during the daily Question Period yesterday.


----------



## sgf (16 Apr 2008)

If this wasnt a raid, what was it?


----------



## Yrys (16 Apr 2008)

A search warrant, by Election Canada, with RCMP officers present, to be sure everything went smoothly.

You think Elections Canada can do raid ?!?


add :

CBC call it a "search" : Mounties search Tory headquarters


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> If this wasnt a raid, what was it?



Enough!!........I try to see both sides in my role as a Mod here but you are but one of my nerves away from being gone.

You want a raid? Phone 911 and say you have hostages and a gun...you will see a raid.


Folks,
Back on the actual topic......not some stupid word game from those with an agenda but a severe lack of LEO worldship.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> If this wasnt a raid, what was it?



 :

That has been explained above (or below, depending on your settings).  It was the "Execution of a Warrant".......by an Elections Canada official and a RCMP officer who was "present".


----------



## sgf (16 Apr 2008)

An execution of a warrant is a raid. 



> n.
> A surprise attack by a small armed force.
> A sudden forcible entry into a place by police: a raid on a gambling den.
> An entrance into another's territory for the purpose of seizing goods or valuables.
> ...



I would say that the third one covers this, but at the end of the day it really doesnt matter what this is called: search, raid, visit. This has to be embarassing for Harper, and I cant remember another time when the RCMP raided a Political Party HQs. Whos knows if the Tories are quilty or not, but what it does show (at least to me), that the promise that Harper made about accountability, openess and that things would be different with his party was just hot air. I am well aware all of the scandals the Liberals were involved in, and how that affected their party; this latest just reinforces to me that the Conservatives are not much better.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Apr 2008)

Well, there goes that last nerve I was holding on to......

Just couldn't drop the bone and keep it on topic, could you?

Bye.


----------



## garb811 (16 Apr 2008)

Well, persons closely connected to the federal Liberal party did manage to trigger search warrants on the BC Legislature (Warrants Raise Tough Questions for Libs) in relation to criminal allegations.  That is a little more embarrasing in my books considering, you know, the status of the place compared to a mere office, even if it is the HQ of a political party.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Apr 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Well, persons closely connected to the federal Liberal party did manage to trigger search warrants on the BC Legislature (Warrants Raise Tough Questions for Libs) in relation to criminal allegations.  That is a little more embarrasing in my books considering, you know, the status of the place compared to a mere office, even if it is the HQ of a political party.



The "raid" on the BC legislature was more like a real raid because it involved dozens of uniformed Victoria Police officers (all of whom appeared to be sergeants or higher) and marked vehicles.  As well, I don't believe the media was there waiting for them, but because the media usually hang around there, they were no doubt attracted by the hub-bub.  I believe the allegations/charges were/are Criminal Code violations, including influence peddling.

What happened yesterday, with two plain clothes constables and a couple of other civilian officials, looked like a simple execution of a search warrant.  Hardly a "raid".


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an article that actually makes a fair bit of sense to me:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080417.wtories17/BNStory/National/home


> Former lobbyist deems raids an act of revenge
> 
> BILL CURRY AND JANE TABER
> 
> ...



It is a fact that:

•	There are long, drawn-out and very bitter feuds between bureaucrats and citizens (individually and in groups);

•	Bureaucrats are only human – they do hold grudges; and

•	*A few* (not to many, I hope) bureaucrats are partisan and they are not above using their positions to advance the interests of those they favour or retard the interests of those they oppose or with whom they are engaged in a feud.


----------



## stegner (17 Apr 2008)

> It is a fact that:
> 
> •   There are long, drawn-out and very bitter feuds between bureaucrats and citizens (individually and in groups);
> 
> ...




The problem I think is that Harper & Co. have been painting everyone from the civil service to the courts to the Governor General to the media as  biased against them right from Jan 23, 2006.   Whenever an issue comes up substantive or not I have noticed a pattern of the CPC blaming someone else and accusing them of being biased an inappropriately so.   While there may be some instances where that is the case, I think the Conservative habit of crying wolf is detracting from occasional occasions where this might be the case.   But I do think that bias is highly overstated in the civil service, which is a reflection of the Canadian citizenry, there are Conservatives, Liberals and those that still believe Elvis is alive therein.   It is important to note that bureaucrats do not stay in place this is the third or fourth Elections Commissioner that Harper has fought with, perhaps the problem lay not with them, especially since the most recent executives of Elections Canada have been *Conservative appointments. *


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> The problem I think is that Harper & Co. have been painting everyone from the civil service to the courts to the Governor General to the media as  biased against them right from Jan 23, 2006.   Whenever an issue comes up substantive or not I have noticed a pattern of the CPC blaming someone else and accusing them of being biased an inappropriately so.   While there may be some instances where that is the case, I think the Conservative habit of crying wolf is detracting from occasional occasions where this might be the case.   But I do think that bias is highly overstated in the civil service, which is a reflection of the Canadian citizenry, there are Conservatives, Liberals and those that still believe Elvis is alive therein.   It is important to note that bureaucrats do not stay in place this is the third or fourth Elections Commissioner that Harper has fought with, perhaps the problem lay not with them, especially since the most recent executives of Elections Canada have been *Conservative appointments. *



I'm inclined to agree with you re: Harper's anti-civil service stance (one he has shared with too many previous Conservative PMs (Diefenbaker and Mulroney, in my memory)). I also agree that Harper's tactics - and they often work - frequently involve shooting the messenger. That being said, *some* civil services are involved in disputes with Canadians, do hold grudges and, in a few cases, are politically partisan and misuse their powers.


----------



## stegner (17 Apr 2008)

> I'm inclined to agree with you re: Harper's anti-civil service stance (one he has shared with too many previous Conservative PMs (Diefenbaker and Mulroney, in my memory)). I also agree that Harper's tactics - and they often work - frequently involve shooting the messenger. That being said, some civil services are involved in disputes with Canadians, do hold grudges and, in a few cases, are politically partisan and misuse their powers.



I agree with you on civil servants holding grudges.   With respect to Diefenbaker I think he had every reason to be paranoid-as everyone was out to get him!


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2008)

Diefenbaker, Mulroney and Harper all had some reason to suspect that the upper levels of the civil service *might* be partisan: Lester Pearson and Mitchell Sharp _et al_ made a pretty convincing case for an inbuilt Liberal bias - just based on long standing relationships and on the fact that civil servants Pearson, Sharp and others drafted the policies and legislation that PMs like King, St Laurent and Pearson made into law.

That being said, Diefenbaker and Mulroney discovered, and I'm sure Harper will discover that even if some (many, perhaps) senior civil servants do have an inbuilt political bias towards the Liberals, they are, in almost all cases, both able and willing to put their biases aside and serve the Conservative government faithfully.


----------



## RangerRay (18 Apr 2008)

In my job, were I required to enter a premisis with a search warrant, I would only require the RCMP if I expected trouble, i.e. in previous dealings, they became very beligerent and/or violent.

Why did Elections Canada call the RCMP in this instance?  Surely, they didn't expect staff at Conservative HQ to become beligerent and violent?

Giving the media prior knowledge is also a troubling question that should must be answered.  They didn't show up because they were listening to their scanners!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> In my job, were I required to enter a premisis with a search warrant, I would only require the RCMP if I expected trouble, i.e. in previous dealings, they became very beligerent and/or violent.
> 
> *Why did Elections Canada call the RCMP in this instance*?  Surely, they didn't expect staff at Conservative HQ to become beligerent and violent?
> 
> Giving the media prior knowledge is also a troubling question that should must be answered.  They didn't show up because they were listening to their scanners!



Because they knew the cameras would be there...and no one could say anything to convince me otherwise.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Apr 2008)

Sounds like it was politically motivated. A Liberal pol was just involved in fraud so maybe its a shot across the bow. If I were the PM and the RCMP were used to make a political point I think I would be firing some people.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/415797


----------



## Rodahn (19 Apr 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Sounds like it was politically motivated. A Liberal pol was just involved in fraud so maybe its a shot across the bow. If I were the PM and the RCMP were used to make a political point I think I would be firing some people.
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/415797



Normally I would agree, however in this instance both the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner's names were suggested by the Conservatives and passed by Parliament....


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2008)

More pieces of the puzzle:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/260507.php?utm_medium=RSS



> *Elections Canada: Who does Andre Thouin work for?*
> Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 10:40 PM
> 
> A minor detail, but you know Andre Thouin?   He's the Elections Canada official photographed carrying out that box of material from Conservative Party headquarters.  Here's the thing.  I can't find him in the staff list.
> ...


----------



## Rodahn (21 Apr 2008)

Curiouser, and curiouser......


----------



## Yrys (21 Apr 2008)

Interesting (french) article about the bottom of the thing (law and PC procedures) rather then the surface of the thing.

Un scandale équivoque


----------



## Remius (21 Apr 2008)

Any reason why it might not be the RCMP who tipped off the media?  Some people there have many reasons to dislike the current government.


----------



## Rodahn (21 Apr 2008)

Article from David Akin; see link...

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=ed2eef06-e587-425a-b4b7-85c2fd266e3b&k=49151


----------



## Dog Walker (21 Apr 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More pieces of the puzzle:
> 
> http://stevejanke.com/archives/260507.php?utm_medium=RSS



Years ago, I had a co-worker whose wife was a certified accountant. Once she was hired by the police to take part on a raid on a business which was under investigation.  She actually went in with the police and she was the one responsible for securing and the examination of the books and records. The police contracted her for that investigation because of her expertise, and because she was an objective third party.


----------



## Dog Walker (21 Apr 2008)

Disregard the post above. I did a search on google and found the following:

http://communities.canada.com/montrealgazette/blogs/onthehill/archive/2008/04/15/what-goes-around.aspx



			
				Dog Walker said:
			
		

> What Goes Around.......
> One of the key players in today's raid on Conservative Party headquarters was a gentleman named André Thouin and who told reporters he was working with Elections Canada as he walked out of party offices with a brown cardboard box he said contained documents.
> Could that possibly be the same André Thouin who once served as a chief superintendent with the RCMP before he retired from the force and whose testimony before the Gomery Commission helped convince Justice John Gomery that Liberal cabinet minister Alfonso Gagliano was indeed making decisions about what events should be sponsored. Gomery's inquiry into government sponsorships ended up playing a key role in the downfall of the Liberal government, much to the delight of Stephen Harper's Conservatives
> Now it appears that Mr. Thouin is playing a key role in Elections Canada's probe into political party advertising violations by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, much to the delight of the Liberals.
> What goes around......



So Mr Thouin could be an outside investigator or a consultant doing contract work for Election Canada and not an employee.


----------



## Rodahn (22 Apr 2008)

'Altered' ad invoice began Tory troubles

OTTAWA–It was the Conservative party's friends, not its political enemies, that aroused Elections Canada suspicions about overspending in the 2006 election campaign.

According to a sworn affidavit, executives with Retail Media Inc., the Toronto "media buying" firm for the Conservatives, balked when investigators showed them an invoice on the company's letterhead.

The executives "didn't recognize" the invoice, similar to that filed by about 15 Conservative candidates among 67 from the 2006 election seeking more than $825,000 in taxpayer-funded rebates.

Marilyn Dixon, chief operating officer, suggested the invoice "must have been altered or created by someone" because they didn't look like the ones her firm submitted to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Now, the party is under investigation for filing returns with Elections Canada "that it knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a materially false or misleading statement" on advertising expenses.

It is also facing allegations, unproven in court, that it conceived a scheme that would allow the national party to spend $1.1 million over its legal $18.2 million election expenses limit, leading to angry opposition charges yesterday that the Conservatives stole the election.

No formal charges have been laid under the Canada Elections Act, though three are under consideration. A lawsuit the Tory party launched to challenge the chief electoral officer's decision to deny rebates to candidates is on hold.

The details about the suspicious Retail Media invoice for $39,999.91 were laid out in a sworn affidavit filed by an elections investigator who sought a warrant to raid Conservative headquarters last week.

In the information sworn to obtain the warrant, investigator Ronald Lamothe, with the office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, described a deliberate "in-and-out" scheme conceived to move money from national coffers into and out of the accounts of local campaigns, which have their own spending limits, in order to skirt the national spending limit.

An added benefit to any candidate who participated would be a "60 per cent windfall reimbursement" through the taxpayer-funded rebate, the affidavit said.

The invoice Lamothe showed Retail Media had been sent to candidate Steve Halicki's campaign for the riding of York South-Weston. 

His official agent, Barbro Soderberg, told auditors she was uneasy about the advertising spending from the get-go but was assured by the party "this process is legal."

"As a bookkeeper, I know that sometimes you have to use creative accounting between small companies but I found this move was being a little too creative," Soderberg would later tell Elections Canada investigators.

Though unproven in court, the allegations are political dynamite.

A charge against a party's chief agent of providing returns containing false or misleading statements is liable to a range of penalties that include a $5,000 fine, five years' imprisonment or both, the deregistration of the party and liquidation of its assets, or for the party a $25,000 fine. The penalty for knowingly exceeding the election expense limit for a party's chief agent is a $1,000 fine, three months' imprisonment or both. A registered party is liable to a $25,000 fine.

Yesterday, the Conservative party denied any documents were doctored or falsified. "I don't think anything was supplied that was misleading," said government House leader Peter Van Loan. "The documents all laid out in some detail who was spending on what."

The explanation for the altered invoice? Party officials liken it to someone breaking out his share of a restaurant tab for expense purposes.

The affidavit documents how the Tory party figured out at the outset which candidates would buy into a regional TV and radio advertising plan and, based on pledges, booked airtime through Retail Media, for which the party paid in advance.

Retail Media later tallied the costs, broke down the amounts according to instructions from the national party officials, and sent invoices back to Conservative headquarters in Ottawa listing all the ridings and their allocation of costs.

Party officials say headquarters staff then stripped out the costs borne by other campaigns and showed only the amount pledged by the particular local campaign in the invoice it mailed to a candidate so he or she could claim advertising expenses, and reap rebates of 60 per cent of the invoiced spending.

They say there's nothing sinister about changing the original document and withholding the total spending on advertising because it was not information local campaigns needed. 

Elections Canada doesn't buy it.

"Funds were transferred into and out of each of the bank accounts of the 67 campaigns ... entirely under the control of and at the direction of officials of the Conservative Fund of Canada and/or the Conservative Party of Canada," the affidavit alleges. "The purpose of the in and out transfers was to provide participating candidates with documentation to support their reimbursement claims for these election expenses."


http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/416912


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2008)

Looking at the bigger issues:

http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2008/04/looks-like-i-not-only-one.html



> * Looks like I'm not the only one...*
> 
> ...to view the whole election financing issue the way I do.
> 
> ...


----------



## stegner (26 Apr 2008)

This is the issue of the lawsuit between the CPC and Elections Canada-the debate over what constitutes national and local advertising.  *It is not the issue of why millions of dollars were transferred into local accounts only to be transferred out just days later-which is the subject of the national Elections Canada investigation. *  The in and out scheme allowed local candidates to claim the national funding as their own for reimbursement purposes which means that taxpayers would be on the hook for millions of dollars they should not be according to the laws. I see the CPC has succeeded in muddying the issue.  The other issue is separate and not a direct correlation as the CPC has asserted.  As for who leaked the raid to the Liberals (who showed up with cameras) and the media-why has no one considered the Conservative themselves as this has proved to distract many from the real issue at hand whether the CPC engaged in illegal activities by raising the spectre that civil servants are corrupt themselves and that they are being persecuted.  If they had not showed up many of these people would be asking different questions that is for sure.   Coincidence that every CPC mouthpiece is bringing this up?   I don't think so.   BTW.  All those CPC people saying that everybody does this and they have lots of evidence on this.  Put your money were your mouth is. or is this another evidence of in and out but merely with their word and honesty?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2008)

Stegner-

My read of John Robson is that he has it about right- the Tories broke no laws, but were a little too clever.  He is also right about Elections Canada- they are not supposed to make the law- that is Parliament's job.

Finally, I do not believe that the Liberals have carefully thought through the implications of this.  All it takes is one Liberal Riding Association to be found o have sloppy accounting practices and they are in the same pit of mud as the Tories- and you want bet that there are any number researchers and journalists working on that right now. The more thoughtful of the Liberals have already noticed this.  Which is why you aren't seeing the Liberals pulling the Govt down over this is and getting an election started.


----------



## stegner (26 Apr 2008)

> My read of John Robson is that he has it about right- the Tories broke no laws, but were a little too clever.  He is also right about Elections Canada- they are not supposed to make the law- that is Parliament's job.



The Court's will decide this.   Elections Canada is a regulatory body which means it enforces the law.  It has examined the books of all the candidates and has found that the CPC had clear discrepancies, while the other parties did not.   

Again,  you are missing the point there are two different issues here:

1.  National advertising at the local level or is it? (The subject of the lawsuit)

2.  Transferring money into a bank account and rapidly transferring it back out for the purposes of claiming a larger return from Elections Canada and for the national campaign to be below the cap required by law.   That is the "in and out" aspect.  



> Which is why you aren't seeing the Liberals pulling the Govt down over this is and getting an election started.



This has no bearing on the validity of the accusations whatsoever.  There have been many scandals and Dion is being smart to wait as Harper keeps digging himself a deep hole.   Harper has lost all credibilty for being accountable.  He has also gotten Canada into a recession just 2.5 years after having inherited one of the strongest Canadian economies in history.  Like that Yes, Prime Minister episode when Sir Humphrey Appleby advised the PM that economists know nothing about the economy seems to hold true in this present instance.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2008)

> He has also gotten Canada into a recession just 2.5 years after having inherited one of the strongest Canadian economies in history.



Oh Please!

Stegner- I would like you to explain, in one hundred words or less, with references, how precisely any Canadian politician, much less the current PM is responsible for the Mortgage meltdown and liquidity crisis in the US- which is the true source of the current recession.  Besides, if PM Harper is truly responsible for this recession, then it would also logically hold true that Dalton McGinty would be equally responsible for mismanaging Ontario's manufacturing sector, would it not?



> Again,  you are missing the point there are two different issues here:
> 
> 1.  National advertising at the local level or is it? (The subject of the lawsuit)
> 
> 2.  Transferring money into a bank account and rapidly transferring it back out for the purposes of claiming a larger return from Elections Canada and for the national campaign to be below the cap required by law.   That is the "in and out" aspect.



I am not missing the point.  It is not up to Elections Canada to decide the content of advertising- the Courts will clean their clocks on that point.  As for accounting- as I agreed, the CPC was probably too clever by half.  Not as clever as the Liberal Party "sponsoring" themselves with $40 million of taxpayers money, but still, too clever.



> There have been many scandals and Dion is being smart



Recent history would not prove your point.  Mr Dion has had circles run around him in and out of Parliament for the past year.  He is a dead man walking- most of the senior Liberals appear to want him to lose the next election so that the next leader can get on with beating the Tories.  And to be fair- in the fullness of time, the Liberals will regain power in Ottawa.  It is the way of the world


----------



## stegner (26 Apr 2008)

> Oh Please!
> 
> Stegner- I would like you to explain, in one hundred words or less, with references, how precisely any Canadian politician, much less the current PM is responsible for the Mortgage meltdown and liquidity crisis in the US- which is the true source of the current recession.  Besides, if PM Harper is truly responsible for this recession, then it would also logically hold true that Dalton McGinty would be equally responsible for mismanaging Ontario's manufacturing sector, would it not?



It is precisely because they claim the credit *when times are good *like Harper did last year.  You can't claim that your economic policies have created huge economic growth one year and than claim that you can't control the economy the next when the economy is bad.  Can't have it both ways.   I would find Dalton McGuinty at more fault if he could control the Canadian dollar-but he can't.   He is not without blame though.    



> He is a dead man walking- most of the senior Liberals appear to want him to lose the next election so that the next leader can get on with beating the Tories.



The exact same was said about Stephen Harper as late as October 2005.   Funny how he proved his critics wrong.   I agree that Dion has to go but it is most likely that he will end as PM within the next two years.




> I am not missing the point.  It is not up to Elections Canada to decide the content of advertising- the Courts will clean their clocks on that point.  As for accounting- as I agreed, the CPC was probably too clever by half.  Not as clever as the Liberal Party "sponsoring" themselves with $40 million of taxpayers money, but still, too clever.



Funny thing though- 40 million did not go to the Liberal Party of Canada.  In truth, it was probably closer to the amount that Harper seeks to get from Elections Canada.   Funny how the Liberals never argued that every party was doing what they were doing or that there were moles and civil servants out to get them as the CPC is now.


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2008)

We're in a recession?? I didn't know that. How come everyone's talking about how much BETTER the Canadian economy is holding up than the US'?

Sure exports from central Canada have declined (but that's what happens when your huge neighbour to the South IS in a recession and simply isn't importing and buying your overly priced-to-pay-too-high-union-autoworkers), but things remain steady out west.

Even the experts are saying that IF we do go into a recession, it won't be widely felt accross Canada, and will not come close to resembling the recession of the late 80s-early 90s. That's because ... the suffering is mostly limited to that central area of Canada who are now reaping the "benefits" of their overpriced costs of doing business in the past. Mr Hargrove is certainly quick to call for government intervention to devalue our dollar (still at record strength levels -- even WITH Harper in power -- go figure  ) to protect those manufacturing jobs ... 

The remainder of the economy remains strong, and growth is still steady in the West. Unemployment is expected to remain low.

If Harper was doing such a bad job our dollar wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today ... and we'd be in the same situation as the US. We are not. Not even close to it, but we do get to feel the ripple effect of their recession up here in the North and it really wouldn't matter which party was in power for that to be a fact.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2008)

> I would find Dalton McGuinty at more fault if he could control the Canadian dollar-but he can't.   He is not without blame though.



You cannot be seriously advocating that we deliberately devalue our currency, just so that we can continue exporting to the US?  In my mind, there are only two ways of doing that- cutting interest rates to near zero or printing money.  Both (either) would cause inflation to run well above the 2 percent Bank of Canada target and would in the long term, be far more harmful than a recession for a year or two that usually has the effect of shaking the weak or ineffective performers out of the market.

Look- all politicians like to take credit for good economic times- Chretien did it; Mulroney did it; 





> everyone does it.


  Why don't we just stipulate that all politicians will take credit for good things and blame bad things on others- I can live with that.

I agree that it is not outside the realm of possible that Dion could become PM- probably in a very narrow minority Govt situation that would mirror what we currently have on the go now.  That will not stop the sharks in the Liberal Party from circling very long- he will get knocked off by his own party sooner, rather than later.


----------



## stegner (26 Apr 2008)

> Why don't we just stipulate that all politicians will take credit for good things and blame bad things on others- I can live with that.



Perfect!



> You cannot be seriously advocating that we deliberately devalue our currency, just so that we can continue exporting to the US?



No. We can't really do that   I think Canada needs to come with an economic plan that is not so reliant on exports.   We are putting all our eggs into one basket   Whatever happened to Canadians making stuff for themselves?


----------



## Yrys (26 Apr 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> hatever happened to Canadians making stuff for themselves?



I had to make an homework on Québec production, importations and exportation a few years ago. I was pissed off at seeing how much woods 
we were exporting to re imported finish products at higher cost ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2008)

> No. We can't really do that   I think Canada needs to come with an economic plan that is not so reliant on exports.   We are putting all our eggs into one basket   Whatever happened to Canadians making stuff for themselves?



Looked at a map of Canada lately?  We are a country of 33 million people inhabiting the second largest land-mass on the planet.  80% of those 33 million (about 26 million people) live within 200 Miles of the US/Canada border.  How, precisely, do you propose to create an economic structure in Canada that does not rely on exports- and by extension, with most of those exports going to the largest market in the world (the US) that is also our closest market? 

This thread is beginning to drift, but I will just say that while we could always do more to diversify our export markets, geography and history tie us, more or less, to the US.

I'll just close by saying:

Liberals=bad
Conservatives=good


----------



## stegner (26 Apr 2008)

> Looked at a map of Canada lately?  We are a country of 33 million people inhabiting the second largest land-mass on the planet.  80% of those 33 million (about 26 million people) live within 200 Miles of the US/Canada border.  How, precisely, do you propose to create an economic structure in Canada that does not rely on exports- and by extension, with most of those exports going to the largest market in the world (the US) that is also our closest market?



I didn't say it was easy   




> This thread is beginning to drift, but I will just say that while we could always do more to diversify our export markets, geography and history tie us, more or less, to the US.



Agreed



> Liberals=bad
> Conservatives=good



Grrrrrr


----------



## Yrys (26 Apr 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Grrrrrr





(and yes, mods, you can erased that post ... )


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2008)

The received wisdom and the Liberal view of Canada has been, since reciprocity went down the drain in 1911, that we needed to stop being hewers of wood and drawers of water – profitable though it was to provide resources to the American factories. So, building on the Conservatives’ fearful, small-minded _National Policy_, and being always conscious of Québec nationalism, a policy was created that aimed to create an industrial base, sheltering behind tariffs, in Québec and Ontario selling second and even third order goods to all Canadians and even Americans and other foreigners.  The Second World War changed all that. The plan got turned upside down: Ontario benefited hugely, Québec far less than it probably deserved.

But, that aside, from the ‘50s to the ‘90s the universe unfolded as it should have, etc, and Ontario got rich and then richer; rich enough, with a bit of help from resource rich BC and Alberta, to buy off Québec and Atlantic Canada. Then along came the Arabs and oil became a weapon. The price of oil went from about $3.00/bbl in 1958 to $111.00/bbl in 208 – a 37 fold increase.  (There are some good data in this nine month old CBC news story.) Now, with China weighing in with a (momentarily) insatiable demand for resources, the economic model is all wrong. Even though we spent the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s debasing our currency in order to sustain low-skill/high salaried metal bending jobs in Ontario and Québec the world was having none of it as the century (and millennium) turned. Our dollar became a petrodollar – driving the cost of Ontario and Québec products up and up and up even as it enriched Alberta and now BC and Saskatchewan, too.

Ontario can adapt – it need not become another Québec. But, there are two Canadas now, divided by the Ottawa River:

•	Old Canada, everything East of the Ottawa River, including momentarily oil rich Newfoundland and Labrador, has stagnant economies, declining populations and a _habit_ of living off equalization payments.

•	New Canada, everything West of the Ottawa River, is growing fast and *well* because that’s where almost all the immigrants are going. Money pours in and people put their skills and knowledge to making more and more of it. New Canada is not afraid to experiment; it is not afraid to challenge, for example, the idea of a Maoist health care system.

Ontario has no choice but to adapt to being part of New Canada; it cannot indulge in Old Canada’s political choices – immensely popular though they may be. This puts the Liberals in a huge muddle. They want to blame Conservative Alberta for everything that’s wrong with the world but Ontario’s remaining good low skill/high pay metal bending jobs depend upon a steady stream of world priced Alberta oil to go into the fuel tanks.

The Liberals are the _natural governing party_ of Old Canada and of the Old Canadian model. The Conservatives are not and need not be the _natural governing party_ of New Canada but, unless and until the Liberals can wring the last vestiges of Pierre Trudeau’s socio-economic illiteracy out of the party, they may be the only choice.

For the moment we are back to being hewers of wood and drawers of water – and it is still profitable. Ontario has to migrate to being a knowledge and service economy. California, Massachusetts and even Texas  provide useful models. Stegner is right, the change – the absolutely mandatory change – will not be easy, nor will it be pleasant for many, many Canadians. But, it will come and nothing the Liberals can say or do will stop it. The question is: can the Liberals change, too?


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Apr 2008)

>You can't claim that your economic policies have created huge economic growth one year and than claim that you can't control the economy the next when the economy is bad.  Can't have it both ways.

Sure you can.  It is entirely reasonable for the Chretien, Martin, and Harper governments to claim that their economic policies benefited Canada, and that the current "bad" economy - to the extent that it really exists and is not just a figment of doomsayers' imaginations - is the result of forces beyond any reasonable expectation of being under our control: events in the US.


----------



## sboatright (21 Jul 2008)

Interesting article by John Robson in the Ottawa Citizen on the "In and Out Scandal".  Considering how this story was the front page on most of MSM when it was only allegations and innuendos - why is it that NOBODY but Robson is touching this?


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=b92b618d-d777-4539-b553-c34b3a5b0376&p=2#commentsFormTitle

John Robson . The case of the disappearing scandal
John Robson, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, July 18, 2008

Remember how the old Perry Mason TV program would end with his brilliant interrogation trapping the guilty party into sobbing out a confession? It's very much unlike watching a parliamentary committee in action. I liked Raymond Burr's show better.

As a rule, MPs on committees seem to have very hazy goals in questioning witnesses and no coherent strategy for reaching them. But things were far worse at this week's special meeting of the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee, apparently summoned for the sole purpose of generating silly-season headlines about Tory sleaze based on a supposed election financing scandal. First, opposition members wasted their time trying to get Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, to slam the Tories in ways he had explicitly said at the outset he would not do, because he could not comment on anything currently before the courts or under investigation by the Commissioner of Elections Canada.

Then Pierre Poilievre led off for the Tories. Since he usually reminds me of Mason's haplessly belligerent TV nemesis, DA Hamilton Burger, I wasn't expecting things to improve. But he surprised me with not one, nor two, but three of the dramatic moments that habitually marked the climax of the old Mason show.

First he asked Mr. Mayrand why slide 6 of his PowerPoint handout to the committee defined "Candidate election expenses" as "any expense incurred, or property or service used to directly promote or oppose a candidate during an election period" when the Elections Canada candidates' handbook for the 2006 election (on p. 25) directly quotes clause 407(1) of the Canada Elections Act that it must be "used directly to promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election."

Since the crux of this matter is spending by local candidates to promote the national party, the altered wording to leave out "party" is not a trivial omission. (Especially as the latest, 2007 Elections Canada candidates handbook also removes the reference to parties (see p. 27) while citing the same, unaltered, clause 407(1) of the Elections Act.) But Mr. Poilievre wasn't done with his fireworks.

He then read an e-mail worth quoting in full: "Hi Phyllis, We are told by communications folks in BC that these were radio ads with the Candidate's personal tag on the end -- therefore a local expense to be reported under the Candidate's expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign -- in the case of VanEast, $2,612.00. The good news is that the Federal Party will transfer $2,600 to the Federal Riding Association as we agreed to pay for the ads. We hope that you are able to squeeze this in under the ceiling. Some expenses are not considered election expenses subject to spending limits, such as fundraising costs. Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think we have a problem." It was signed by the federal party bookkeeper.

It sounds like sharp practice. But did it require investigation? Mr. Mayrand refused to comment without more information. So Mr. Poilievre revealed that it was an NDP e-mail obtained by the Tories from Elections Canada. Yet Mr. Mayrand testified that no other party had engaged in the sort of "in-and-out" financing that prompted him to refuse dozens of Tory reimbursement claims and ask the Commissioner of Elections Canada to investigate.

The third Mason-style moment concerned Mr. Mayrand's attempt to show that his office had not given the press or the Liberal party a heads-up on the police raid on Conservative Party HQ. In his opening statement the Chief Electoral Officer said an internal review had cleared him and his staff, though when Scott Reid on a point of order required him to table the review he quickly downgraded it to "not truly a report, barely a sheet."

So Mr. Poilievre asked who conducted the review and Mr. Mayrand grudgingly confessed that it was one M. Mayrand. Since he certainly wouldn't let the Tories investigate themselves on the in-and-out affair, Mr. Poilievre called it surprising that he'd think it appropriate to investigate himself on the leak. And it is.

The more I watch this stuff, including the ugly procedural fiddling on Wednesday, the more convinced I am that if there's a scandal here, it doesn't involve the Tories. But nobody seems to care. The opposition want a scandal, the press want a scandal, and since everybody who's anybody knows Conservatives stink, let's not bore ourselves with details on a beautiful summer day.

Imagine a Perry Mason show where, after the dramatic denouement, the jury convicted his client anyway. I expect it would be cancelled in a hurry.

John Robson's column appears weekly
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2008)

Funny how some things are not being investigated:

tp://rightoncourse.blogspot.com/2008/08/do-santas-elves-vote-liberal.html



> *Do Santa's Elves Vote Liberal?*
> 
> The completely unequal treatment that Elections Canada gives with respect to the Conservative Party and Liberal Party continues. And this time it's taken an almost bizarre turn.
> 
> ...



Since Elections Canada is supposed to be a non partisan agency, stuff like this really hurts their credibility. If this continues, people might begin to wonder if the actual election process in Oct 2009 will be justly administered?


----------



## stegner (14 Aug 2008)

> Funny how some things are not being investigated:



Wow stop the presses!  This is way bigger than the Conservatives transferring thousands upon thousands of dollars in and out of accounts, which could be called fraud or even money laundering by some.  Please explain why you would only need to keep money in an account for less than 24 hours?  Why would there be hundreds of transactions like this?  Why was it only the Conservatives that did this in and out business? Maybe the Conservatives don't only share girlfriends with bikers perhaps accountants as well?  Mayrand was appointed by Harper by the way.  His qualifications?  Honest and hard-working. The conspiracy theorists need to put their tin foil hats back on.  The public service is not out to 'get' Harper.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2008)

You could try re-reading the two posts ahead of yours to see something is not kosher in this so called investigation. 



> "Hi Phyllis, We are told by communications folks in BC that these were radio ads with the Candidate's personal tag on the end -- therefore a local expense to be reported under the Candidate's expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign -- in the case of VanEast, $2,612.00. The good news is that the Federal Party will transfer $2,600 to the Federal Riding Association as we agreed to pay for the ads. We hope that you are able to squeeze this in under the ceiling. Some expenses are not considered election expenses subject to spending limits, such as fundraising costs. Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think we have a problem." It was signed by the federal party bookkeeper.
> 
> It sounds like sharp practice. But did it require investigation? Mr. Mayrand refused to comment without more information. *So Mr. Poilievre revealed that it was an NDP e-mail obtained by the Tories from Elections Canada. Yet Mr. Mayrand testified that no other party had engaged in the sort of "in-and-out" financing that prompted him to refuse dozens of Tory reimbursement claims and ask the Commissioner of Elections Canada to investigate.*



And of course accepting donations from people with ficticious postal codes shouldn't ring any alarm bells, now.


----------



## stegner (14 Aug 2008)

The NDP reimbursed Elections Canada for this.   The Conservatives are refusing to reimburse Elections Canada. That's one difference.  The other is that the Conservatives did the in and out scheme large scale and refused to pay or reimburse the tax payers.  I would encourage you to watch on CPAC the committee investigation in which former Conservative candidates are testifying how wrong this was.


----------



## DBA (14 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> The NDP reimbursed Elections Canada for this.   The Conservatives are refusing to reimburse Elections Canada. That's one difference.  The other is that the Conservatives did the in and out scheme large scale and refused to pay or reimburse the tax payers.  I would encourage you to watch on CPAC the committee investigation in which former Conservative candidates are testifying how wrong this was.



My understanding is after the expenses in question were submitted for reimbursement to elections Canada by the conservatives they were rejected as not being eligible riding expenses. There is nothing to pay back, as far as I know they never got anything. In fact the conservative lawsuit is about getting the expenses reimbursed by elections Canada (60% of eligible expenses are reimbursed by elections Canada).


----------



## stegner (14 Aug 2008)

> My understanding is after the expenses in question were submitted for reimbursement to elections Canada by the conservatives they were rejected as not being eligible riding expenses. There is nothing to pay back, as far as I know they never got anything. In fact the conservative lawsuit is about getting the expenses reimbursed by elections Canada (60% of eligible expenses are reimbursed by elections Canada).



Hmm.  This could be the case.  I find this all very confusing.  I know the NDP wrote Elections Canada a cheque and that the the Conservatives are attempting to link what the NDP did with what they did.  I guess this proves that what the NDP did and and the Conservatives did is different than?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Hmm.  This could be the case.  I find this all very confusing.  I know the NDP wrote Elections Canada a cheque and that the the Conservatives are attempting to link what the NDP did with what they did.  I guess this proves that what the NDP did and and the Conservatives did is different than?



My understanding, very flawed though it may be, is that the Conservatives have two complaints:

1. Inconsistent application of the rules by Elections Canada - inconsistencies that, invariably, seem to disadvantage the Conservatives; and

2. They claim that the so called "In and Out" scheme is legal - maybe a _s t r e t c h_ of the rules, but legal within the letter of the law. Elections Canada might wish the law was written differently but they, unlike the SCC with the Constitution, cannot "read in" what they (EC) wish the original authors' intent might have been.


----------



## stegner (14 Aug 2008)

> 2. They claim that the so called "In and Out" scheme is legal - maybe a s t r e t c h of the rules, but legal within the letter of the law. Elections Canada might wish the law was written differently but they, unlike the SCC with the Constitution, cannot "read in" what they (EC) wish the original authors' intent might have been.



Does Elections Canada have any regulatory authority though?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Does Elections Canada have any regulatory authority though?



Quite a lot, I think, as it applies to election spending regulations.


----------



## stegner (14 Aug 2008)

> Quite a lot, I think, as it applies to election spending regulations.



So might they choose to interpret or read in certain provisions.   For instance, could they say that someone did not break the law, but blurred it to the effect that some punishment must be levied.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> For instance, could they say that someone did not break the law, but blurred it to the effect that some punishment must be levied.



If the law was not broken, how could any punishment be justified ?


----------



## stegner (14 Aug 2008)

> If the law was not broken, how could any punishment be justified ?



Perhaps it could be justified by saying though the law has not been violated the spirit of the law has?  I know I am reaching here


----------



## aesop081 (14 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I know I am reaching here



Obviously.


----------



## stegner (14 Aug 2008)

> Obviously.



How so?


----------



## DBA (14 Aug 2008)

From the Elections Act, Part 2: CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER AND STAFF.  



> 16. The Chief Electoral Officer shall
> (a) exercise general direction and supervision over the conduct of elections;
> *(b) ensure that all election officers act with fairness and impartiality and in compliance with this Act;*
> (c) issue to election officers the instructions that the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary for the administration of this Act; and
> (d) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions that are necessary for the administration of this Act.


----------



## stegner (14 Aug 2008)

> (c) issue to election officers the instructions that the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary for the administration of this Act; and
> (d) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions that are necessary for the administration of this Act.



I believe there provisions give the broad powers for Elections Canada to conduct its investigation.  For instance, administration of the Elections Act could allow Elections Canada to punish the Conservatives for violating the spirit of the legislation.   However, I will not presume to say that the Conservatives did not break the Elections Act or commit fraud-that is for a court to decide.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Perhaps it could be justified by saying though the law has not been violated the spirit of the law has?  I know I am reaching here



It seems to me that Elections Canada, like all other government and parliamentary *regulators*, MUST be bound by and to the letter of the law.

When the law *might* need some interpretation then, in my opinion, it MUST go to a properly constituted court where lawyers and judges can argue the law and the Constitution.

I think it is very dangerous to presume that *regulators* and other assorted busy-bodies (like Human Rights Commissions) can or should be allowed to *interpret* anything.


----------



## RangerRay (14 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> So might they choose to interpret or read in certain provisions.   For instance, could they say that someone did not break the law, but blurred it to the effect that some punishment must be levied.



As someone who works in the regulatory field, I can tell you with confidence that were I to try that, I would be rightly ripped to shreds by counsel and laughed out of the hearing.  I can only go by the Legislature's intent of the statute, not what I think the intent is.

If I, as a regulator, felt that someone blurred the law so much that a penalty were required, I would go through the proper channels to persuade management, executive and Cabinet to amend the statute.  If they don't , too bad so sad.

Editted for clarity.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Aug 2008)

After a refreshing visit to the North Pole, a Liberal member of the Ethics committee accidentally reveals what we already know:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/270744.php



> *Liberal MP Karen Redman's "but": She uncovers In-and-Out in all the parties*,
> 
> Friday August 15, 2008 at 08:27 AM Previous Post Next Post
> Shocking revelations at the committee hearings looking into Conservative Party election spending.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2008)

Another list: who Mr Dion owes (and are still waiting for repayment)

http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/8/6/3827352.html#1154122



> *Dion has until end of next year to find $690,000*
> by DavidAkin on Wed 06 Aug 2008 03:27 PM EDT  |  Permanent Link  |  Cosmos
> Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand issued his ruling today [PDF here] on an application by Stéphane Dion's Liberal leadership campaign for an extension to pay off campaign debts.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Quote from: stegner on 2008-08-14, 12:35:33
> 
> 
> > Hmm.  This could be the case.  I find this all very confusing.  I know the NDP wrote Elections Canada a cheque and that the the Conservatives are attempting to link what the NDP did with what they did.  I guess this proves that what the NDP did and and the Conservatives did is different than?
> ...




It appears that, while election laws are clear enough when dealing with the Conservatives and the NDP, according to an article in the _National Post_, regarding the Liberals, _"the Canada Elections Act “lacks sufficient clarity to support enforcement action in the criminal courts with respect to loans or claims that remain unpaid following the expiry of an extension.”"_

The article say that "Ken Dryden will not raise money to pay back loan for 2006 Liberal leadership race". It _appears_ that Dryden refuses to raise money (and I actually understand his point even though I believe he is _s t r e t c h i n g_ the letter and spirit of the law beyond the breaking point) wile Hedy Fry cannot raise any more. But it's OK, they're Liberals so they can be forgiven their trespasses.


----------

