RCMP raid Conservative party headquarters over election matter

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Does Elections Canada have any regulatory authority though?

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

 

[stegner]

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]

 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]

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]

  I know I am reaching here

Obviously.

 

[stegner]

Obviously.

How so?

 

[DBA]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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.

Thanks to Liberal MP Karen Redman, we learned two things:

Other parties engaged in In-and-Out funding and are being investigated by Elections Canada
The Liberals are sore at Conservative efficiency, and believe that is why the Conservatives need to be punished

Thanks to clever questioning by Liberal MP Karen Redman, Elections Canada Commissioner Marc Mayrand was trapped into revealing that there are other MPs, and not Conservative MPs, that are being looked at by Elections Canada for In-and-Out media buys:

KR: I want to touch on an affidavit by a Jeff Donald who is currently a Conservative staffer but who was involved in the 2006 election campaign.  In an affidavit he purports that all parties did exactly the same as this In-and-Out scheme that the Conservatives are now trying to defend.  Are you familiar with that affidavit?

MM: I'm aware of the affidavit.

KR: I'm wondering in your capacity, if at any time you've come across anything that is equivalent to the media buy that is now commonly called the In-and-Out scheme by the Conservatives?  Can you think of any other examples that are equivalent to the issue that we're now dealing with before this committee?

MM: As I indicated in my previous testimony, I believe I said there was no similar matters.  I have since provided information to the committee, undertakings, and I've indicated that there are four situations identified where there were questions about the incurrence of the expenses.

Karen Redman has managed to do something that the Conservatives have had only limited success at doing, and that is establish that when it comes to transfers between the national and local level to fund advertising, all the parties do it.

Thanks Karen Redman!

Of course, she managed to pull it off by accident.  Karen Redman sets up a Conservative affidavit to be discredited.  She names a particular person, Jeff Donald, and summarizes the key point of his statement, and that is that all parties did the same sort of funding movement.

Then she asks Marc Mayrand to knock that assertion down.

Marc Mayrand does something unexpected.  He admits that earlier he would have done what Karen Redman wants him to do, and that is refute Jeff Donald's assertion that all parties did it.  But now he can't, because he's investigating four other cases for using the same funding structure.

Karen Redman's question was about other parties, and so Marc Mayrand's response clearly suggests that these four cases do not involve Conservatives.

Karen Redman tries to recover, but we'll come back to that later.  Let's skip ahead and see how Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro picks up the ball hastily dropped by Karen Redman.  He reads comment made by a former NDP campaign manager Robin Sears:

DDM: Various New Democrats' filings reveal that in their more centralist structure, more money flows up than down, but they too mix national and local spending freely.

He goes on to write:

Elections Canada's very un-Canadian behaviour is unacceptable in a democracy.  Without a better argument and evidence, Elections Canada will lose the legal battle, and we'll all pay the cost politically.  The bad blood caused by its stormtrooper tactics has infected the political system.  Many Liberals and New Democrats are horrified by all of this. They know that it could be their turn next.

Are you concerned about how many Canadians are right now questioning the impartiality of Elections Canada?  The reputation of Elections Canada in all this?  Does that concerns?  That an NDP campaign manager would write that?  This isn't us saying that.

MM: Well I generally don't comment on media reports.  I will simply point out that before forming an opinion, that everyone should be sure of the looking at all the facts and circumstances.  And again the courts in due course will decide regarding this matter.

DDM: The question is whether you are concerned about the perception of Elections Canada.  We have read numerous examples of the NDP that back up exactly what Mr Sears has said.  Are you right now considering...he also says that "Elections Canada last years decided retroactively to change its interpretation to try and force a separation between party and its candidates' spending".  Now based on his commentary and his being a former NDP campaign director, are you going to look into the practices of the NDP, the ones that we have come out and spoken about, for example, Libby Davies or Olivia Chow?  Are you going to look into their actions?

They have nothing to do with this case.  Surely you can comment on that?

MM: [pause]  What tells you that we're not looking into it?

DDM: Well, you never indicated that you were?

MM: I do not comment specifically on specific files.

DDM: So I can assume by your comment that you are looking at those.

MM: I think if you were to look at our website, you would see that the report of the individual that you have mentioned has not been posted as reviewed which shows that it is still under review.

DDM: Thank you Mr Mayrand.  Mr Mayrand, I have a question with respect to...I noticed that for example, Mr Hubbard, who is part of this committee, his return...I can't confirm...as of today, is not finalized through Elections Canada.  Can you confirm that you may be looking at some of the elections filings of the Liberal Party as well for exercising the same practice?

MM: [pause]  Again, I don't comment on files...

DDM: So you are reviewing...

Another member off camera: So there's a file.  A file on the Liberals.

MM: Unless directed by the committee, I'm not inclined to comment...if you're referring to the four situations I mentioned in my letter, I'm not inclined to comment on those four files or situation are still under review.

DDM: Mr Chair, I'd like to ask that the committee directs Mr Mayrand to respond to the question.

Paul Szabo: The question is with regards to a specific candidate or candidates.  I'm pretty sure that every party has candidates...I should clarify...that have candidates from the last election that have not been settled that have nothing to do with the In-and-Out issue...

Why doesn't this have anything to do with this issue?  Karen Redman asked Marc Mayrand to refute the affidavit by Jeff Donald in which he asserts that other parties engage in so-called In-and-Out funding, which is what this committee is investigating.

Marc Mayrand says he can't because there are four files currently under investigation that support Jeff Donald's affidavit.  That means there are four candidates from the last election, candidates for parties other than the Conservatives, who were engaged in the same sort of media buy funding mechanism.

So why would Liberal MP (and committee chairman) Paul Szabo dismiss these as not having to do with the In-and-Out issue?  If they had nothing to do with the In-and-Out issue, Marc Mayrand would have been able to tell Karen Redman that Jeff Donald's affidavit was without foundation.  He would have said the four files were irrelevant and would have dismissed the affidavit.

He didn't because he couldn't.

Is Paul Szabo too thick to follow this logic?  I don't think so.  But Karen Redman's attempt to recover from the unexpected answer she received to her question is revealing in how the Liberals are trying to keep their In-and-Out funding separate from the Conservative funding, even if Marc Mayrand isn't playing ball.

In what was a failed attempt to get Marc Mayrand to discredit Jeff Donald's affidavit with a follow-up question, Karen Redman essentially admitted that all parties that engage in In-and-Out funding.  Using my favourite conjunction "but", she tries to establish that the real issue is Conservative efficiency:

KR: But..but nothing equivalent to this scale?

MM: Again I won't comment on the specific files.

Marc Mayrand, to his credit, does not give Karen Redman what she's looking for.  Either the "scale" of what the other parties did was the same, or more likely I think, Marc Mayrand has come to understand that the scale at which the mechanism was applied is not relevant to the question of whether a candidate or a party deserves to be investigated.

Karen Redman's "but" bites the dust.

Marc Mayrand states that his previous testimony, that only the Conservatives are under investigation, is no longer true, that Elections Canada has widened its net, and as the Conservatives have been saying all along, you can find numerous examples of In-and-Out funding being done by all the parties.

At this point, it's hopefully only a matter of time before everyone involved comes to agree with the second part of the Conservative Party response to this whole thing, and that is that not only do all parties do it, but that there is nothing illegal about it.

Poor Karen Redman was reduced to using Conservative efficiency in managing election funding as the reason why the Conservatives need to be punished, since she has gotten Marc Mayrand to admit that the Conservatives aren't the only ones who seem to have done this. 

Efficiency and scale are a crime?  Some things are legal for a political party to do only as long as the "scale" is small enough? 

That's the Liberal argument now, thanks to Karen Redman's "but"?

Like I said, only a matter of time.

Which other MPs are under investigation?  Marc Mayrand won't say, but Stephen Taylor has put together an impressive list.

 

[a_majoor]

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.

Like he did for other leadership candidates, Mayrand gave Dion until the end of 2009 to pay off debts that , as of June 3, added up to $690,000.

If Dion's team takes all of the extension to pay that off, he will most certainly be fighting the next general election campaign while fighting to pay off his leadership campaign.


Dion's team is looking to pay off the following creditors:

Stephanos Mamdouh (left) - 2 loans totalling $320,000
TD Canada Trust - $150,000
Marc de la Bruyere - $70,000
Stephen Bronfman - $50,000
Salvatore Guerrera - $50,000
Remi Nault - $50,000

UPDATE: A senior official in Dion's office calls in to say that, since those documents were filed with Elections Canada, Dion's campaign has been busy raising money. The official says that Dion's campaign has paid off a substantial amount of the debt and it now stands at about $250,000. Moreover, the Dion team is confident it will pay the rest of it off by this fall.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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?

 
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.

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.