Elections Canada vs. The Liberals: In and out! In and out! In and – no, looks like it's actually just "out".

by kadyomalley on Friday, June 19, 2009 10:58am - 49 Comments

Canadian Press reveals the latest Liberal funding woes:

OTTAWA–Elections Canada is scrutinizing almost $800,000 worth of expenses filed by Liberal candidates in last fall’s election campaign, The Canadian Press has learned.

The elections watchdog has asked the Liberal party to produce detailed invoices and documentation to prove that a mandatory riding services package was actually worth the $2,500 each candidate was required to pay for it .

Until Elections Canada is satisfied that the packages aren’t really a thinly-veiled donation to party headquarters, the candidates won’t receive their election expenses rebates, worth a total of about $3.5 million to the cash-hungry party. [...]

Elections Canada spokesman John Enright said the agency is on track for distributing rebates, which it hopes to have completed by the end of August. The rate of reimbursements for last fall’s election is so far comparable to that after the 2006 campaign, he said.

As for the request for full documentation about the cost of the Liberals’ riding services package, Enright said that’s “not at all unusual.” And he said all parties were warned before and during the campaign that all expense claims, including transactions between local and central campaigns, would have to be supported with documentation.

“This information is required to ensure that all expenses are fully detailed and also to properly establish the commercial value of the transactions.”

Okay, first off, three cheers for Elections Canada for doing its job, and ITQ hopes this will finally put a stake through the heart of the persistent – and, frankly, downright pernicious – claim heard in certain Conservative quarters that the federal agency is swarming with Liberals and Liberal sympathizers. I’m sure that some of the more outspoken advocates of that particular conspiracy theory will be falling all over themselves to undo some of the damage that may have been done to the agency’s reputation for fairness and impartiality, not to mention the confidence that Canadians quite rightly have in their electoral system.

Secondly,  can we please – pretty, pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top – make a point of not referring to this as a “Liberal in-and-out scandal”? Because it just isn’t – I mean, it may turn out to be a “Liberal election financing scandal“,  but it has nothing to do with inning and outing — the money flowed one way, from local campaigns to the national party, ostensibly to pay for a “riding service package”, but which Elections Canada wants to ensure wasn’t “a thinly veiled donation” to the national campaign.

Which would make this  pretty much the exact opposite of what the Conservatives are accused of having done in 2006, when the party allegedly funneled national ad expenses through local campaigns in order to get around the spending limits. If the concerns expressed by Elections Canada turn out to be true in both cases, the Conservatives simply had too much money to spend on their national campaign in 2006; the 2008 Liberals, meanwhile, just didn’t have enough.

Which doesn’t make it better, of course — I mean, it’s still breaking the rules — but it’s just plain inaccurate to call it “in and out”; if the allegations are borne out, ITQ suggests the “Green Shift Shakedown” as an alternative, or perhaps “The Permanent $2500 Tax on Liberal Candidates”, but feel free to come up with your own in the comments.

Bookmark and Share
  • Mike T.

    I’m sure that some of the more outspoken advocates of that particular conspiracy theory will be falling all over themselves to undo some of the damage that may have been done to the agency’s reputation for fairness and impartiality, not to mention the confidence that Canadians quite rightly have in their electoral system.

    My sarc-o-metre must be malfunctioning. Is this an honestly believed statement? Because depending on who we're talking about, I have no hesitation in believing people will start claiming its a mere show to make us believe Liberal politicians aren't investigated, and that anyone who believes otherwise has happily ingested a certain delicious sugary beverage.

  • Charles

    Yeah, I expect at best a statement like "Even the ridiculously biased Elections Canada thinks they are doing something wrong, so the Liberals must really be doing something truly appalling, like selling the organs of babies on the black market."

  • tobyornotoby

    The Liberals should call for the dismissal of these partisan hacks, take Elections Canada to court, and complain pre-emptively that they won't get a fair shake from whatever "activist" judge hears the case.

    • http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

      Or, they could say, "this is a bit of a nuisance but, sure, here are the receipts that support our claim. Thanks for doing your job on this."

      Oh wait, look, that's exactly what they did: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/18/expense…

      Now which party would you say is trying to hide something: the party that cooperates and provides everything asked for without a fight, or the party who fights, takes you to court, disobeys court orders, etc.?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

    Honest question here. How can the donation be an issue is the Liberals wouldn't have otherwise exceeded their spending maximum?

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

    Honest question here. How can the donation be an issue if the Liberals wouldn't have otherwise exceeded their spending maximum?

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

    Honest question here. How can the donations/purchases be an issue if the Liberals wouldn't have otherwise exceeded their spending maximum?

    • http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

      The riding has claimed a campaign expense for these.

      Unlike with the Conservatives, Elections Canada is not questioning the legitimacy of claiming this as an expense. In fact they are not questioning the legitimacy of anything here. They just want to see some receipts and support that show that the amount of the expense claimed is reasonable.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

        yeah

        that's what I thought.

        I'd say it's a fair enough request. It didn't really add up to any big deal to me because of National was squeezing the riding for $100 toilet seats somebody would have been whispering blue murder about it months ago. They're broke enough as it is.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

        yeah

        that's what I thought.

        I'd say it's a fair enough request. It didn't really add up to any big deal to me because if National was squeezing the riding for $100 toilet seats somebody would have been whispering blue murder about it months ago. They're broke enough as it is.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      Well, if the money was actually a donation, and not a legitimate campaign expense, the candidate wouldn't receive the 60% reimbursement — but unlike the Conservative in-and-out allegations, even if that turns out to be what happened here, it wouldn't constitute a potential infringement of the Elections Act.

      • john g

        If it's considered a donation, would it mean that the candidate has violated the $1,100 annual maximum for 2008?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

          No, it's not a personal donation — it's a transfer between the local and national campaigns.

          • john g

            Thank you

        • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

          No, it's not a personal donation — it's a transfer between the local and national campaigns. The issue is whether it is a legitimately reimbursable election expense.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

        IC

        Elections Canada is just making sure the party isn't padding its expenses. It's a standard audit of a large ticket for which the party was not required to provide documentation unless requested.

        If everything's above board it's the sort of thing the party should on the public's behalf THANK EC for asking.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

        IC

        Elections Canada is just making sure the party isn't padding its expenses because expenses mean extra cash. It's a standard audit of a large ticket for which the party was not required to provide documentation unless requested.

        If everything's above board it's the sort of thing the party should on the public's behalf THANK EC for asking.

      • john g

        Kady, my understanding is that the Conservatives were accused of two things re: In & Out:

        1) Exceeding the national campaign spending limits by pawning off national expenses aslocal expenses
        2) Trying (and failing) to get the reimbursement for those pawned off local expenses.

        Am I wrong about this? Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but aren't the Liberals basically being accused of item #2 above? If so, it seems a bit simplistic to write this off as "not being like In and Out". It's like part of it, isn't it?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

          Yes, hence why it is "In", but not "In and out". The $2500 that the local Liberal campaigns paid for the "riding services package" went one way; there was no "flip" like you saw in the Conservative campaign, where the money was transferred from the party to the local campaign, and then flipped *back* to the party – sometimes within days. The worst case scenario for the Liberals is that the money will be determined to be non-reimbursable. The worst case for the Conservatives would be the party being found to have violated the Elections Act by circumventing the spending limits, which could result in charges being laid. The investigation is still ongoing.

        • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

          Yes, hence why it is "In", but not "In and out". The $2500 that the local Liberal campaigns paid for the "riding services package" went one way — in — here was no subsequent "out" like you saw in the Conservative campaign, where the money was transferred from the party to the local campaign, and then flipped *back* to the party – sometimes within days. The worst case scenario for the Liberals is that the money will be determined to be non-reimbursable. The worst case for the Conservatives would be the party being found to have violated the Elections Act by circumventing the spending limits, which could result in charges being laid. The investigation is still ongoing.

  • Bob Roberts

    This isnt even a news story. Elections Canada hasnt alleged any wrong doing, they have just requested additional documentation because the liberals formula on riding packages changed from the year previous.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    "We've got nothing to hide. There is no in and out here. There were legitimate services provided to the riding associations that we can show the costing of."

    Costing of riding service package:

    Value of buttons, posters, brochures, photos of the leader and templates for lawn signs included in riding package: $99

    Labour cost to assemble each package: $2,401

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    "We've got nothing to hide. There is no in and out here. There were legitimate services provided to the riding associations that we can show the costing of."

    Costing of Riding Service Package:

    Value of buttons, posters, brochures, photos of the leader and templates for lawn signs included in riding package: $99

    Labour cost to assemble each package:
    $2,401

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    "We've got nothing to hide. There is no in and out here. There were legitimate services provided to the riding associations that we can show the costing of."

    Costing of Riding Service Package:

    Value of buttons, posters, brochures, photos of the leader and templates for lawn signs included in package: $99

    Labour cost to assemble each package:
    $2,401

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    "We've got nothing to hide. There is no in and out here. There were legitimate services provided to the riding associations that we can show the costing of."

    Costing of Riding Service Package:

    Value of buttons, posters, brochures, photos of the leader and templates for lawn signs included in package: $99

    Labour cost to assemble each package: $2,401

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tdotlib tdotlib

      C'mon CR – I think your reputation rating is getting to your head! According to Rossi the Liberals will be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the $2,500 was a justified expense. I'm going to reserve my judgment for the point where he is proved wrong.

      Just because we're used to all of our politicians playing the system doesn't mean that they all do.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

        ITQ's prediction: Worst case scenario for the Liberals — Elections Canada disallows a portion – but not all – of the $2500 as a reimbursable expense.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tdotlib tdotlib

      C'mon CR – I think your reputation rating is going to your head! According to Rossi the Liberals will be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the $2,500 was a justified expense. I'm going to reserve my judgment for the point where he is proved wrong.

      Just because we're used to all of our politicians playing the system doesn't mean that they all do.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        Hey, lighten up – it was just a joke. I have no idea what the actual cost breakdown is. We shall see.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        Hey, lighten up, tdotlib – it was just a joke. I have no idea what the actual cost breakdown is. We shall see.

    • john g

      Value of buttons, posters, brochures, photos of the leader and templates for lawn signs included in package: $99

      Labour cost to assemble each package: $2,401

      Preventing an summer election by starving the Liberals of much needed campaign funds: Priceless

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        Except that a campaign ends up being more expensive than the automatic bleeding of the taxpayer provides any party. So, $-ly speaking, repeated election campaigns would have hurt the Liberals far more severely than the Tories.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    It gave me a good laugh!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

    By the way, what IS the status of that 2006 "in and Out" thingamabob, anyway? Isn't there a Statute of Electalimitations, or something?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      Well, the application for judicial review was scheduled to be heard this summer, but has been postponed until the fall. The investigation by the Commissioner of Elections is still in progress.

  • PolJunkie

    "three cheers for Elections Canada for doing its job, and ITQ hopes this will finally put a stake through the heart of the persistent – and, frankly, downright pernicious – claim heard in certain Conservative quarters that the federal agency is swarming with Liberals and Liberal sympathizers."

    Serious wishful thinking, huh Kady?

  • knick

    "…can we please – pretty, pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top – make a point of not referring to this as a “Liberal in-and-out scandal”?"

    Whatever Elections Canada decides, Harper & Co. will do what they always do – distort the facts to their own advantage.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    This is OLD news – Steve Janke (Tory operative super sleuth) went on about this months ago and I'll betcha Poilievre put in a complaint (he has used Janke before).

  • herringchoker

    Hmmm…let's see. $2500 for a package of baubles and trinkets? Now where have I heard that before?

    Oh yeah….that's how Groupaction and Lafleur Communications got the sponsorship ball rolling.

    I guess old habits are hard to break.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      Thanks for providing another example of Something That This Is Entirely Unlike. For one thing, this doesn't involve shady *donations*, let alone allegations that public money was involved. It's a review of candidate returns based on transfers between local campaigns and the party that, in the initial view of Elections Canada, may — that's *may* – not be reimbursable campaign expenses. Elections Canada asks candidates for more information on claimed expenses all the time. It's really, really, really not that unusual.

      • herringchoker

        I'm well aware that Elections Canada asks for information all the time. I once spent four months arguing with them about what happened to $5.12 raised for an unsucessful riding nomination. Sure it was a year after nomination had taken place annd all the bank accounts had been closed, and there was no real public interest as monies raised for nomination contests aren't eligible for tax refunds, but they were sure determined to know what happened to that five dollars.

        In any event, this appears to be another example of Elections Canada trying to arbitrate how thin you can slice the electoral onion. EC's essential argument seems to be that national parties and EDAs are separate and unrelated entities whose electoral fortunes are completely unrelated. According to that theory, the federal parties can't ask the EDAs to share expenses. Of course it's hokum but I'm glad to see the Grits have been triipped up by the absurdity this time.

        As to the bags of trinkets line, its exactly how the sponsorship fleecing started, and it sounds awfully similar to what EC is investigating the Grits for.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Storm in a teakettle.
    The system existed – it sucked – some software salesman made a package of money out of it – and probably voted CPC.
    End of story!

  • Maureen

    Go to http://blackrod.blogspot.com/ to get the low down on a provincial election funding scandal – clearly those that are responsible for keeping elections fair have a long way to go to convince the public that they are doing their job.

    • anonlinereader

      Do you know the site that shows which M.P.s voted to muzzle the P.B.O. web site ? Kady ?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    And in a system where parties were actually supported by their own supporters, rather than this confiscatory leeching of hard-working Canadians, NONE OF THIS WOULD MATTER.

    • hosertohoosier

      There would still be spending caps, which is what the parties were trying to evade. Moreover, ending public financing isn't a politically viable solution (as we saw in November 2008).

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        But why would there still have to be spending caps? If a party could raise enough $ from its supporters (I have listed before that one could limit it to individual Canadians, with a prescribed but much higher donation limit, remove the unfair special-treatment tax credit, among other details), great, spend away…

        "Ending public financing isn't a politically viable solution" in a minority government situation. But it's still the right thing to do.

  • hosertohoosier

    I think it is clear that with caps on party spending, both parties have had to find possibly illegal workarounds. Only the country has suffered from the 20 million dollar cap (which, as I take it, is the principled reason why the in and out scandal mattered). It inhibits the ability of parties to conduct truly national campaigns (the liberals had trouble getting a damn plane), it encourages parties to spend as much as possible before an election (maintaining the permanent campaign feeling), by limiting the ability of big parties to spend (small ones aren't likely to spend over 20 million anyway) it produces minority governments where the Bloc is king.

    It seems so obvious to me that our election financing system doesn't work – our political system started going to the dogs almost as soon as the last set of reforms were made. Killing spending caps is an obvious fix that surely Liberals and Tories can agree on.

  • GuelphGuy

    There was one case of an "Out and In", Guelph Liberal MP Frank Valeriote

Previous

From Macleans