Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

The story the mainstream media buried! Except… never mind

by Paul Wells on Thursday, December 31, 2009 7:23pm - 72 Comments

From the Inkless emailbox, a blast email from the PMO to Conservative supporters:

Subject: Conservative Party Wins Election Rebate Court Case / Le Parti conservateur gagne une action en justice sur le remboursement des dépenses électorales

You aren’t likely to read about this in the mainstream media, which is why we are issuing this special Dec. 31 alert.

Today the Conservative Party won its court application, brought against Elections Canada, to prevent Rebate Double-Dipping.

Rebate Double-Dipping occurs when a political party collects both a GST rebate and an Elections Canada campaign rebate for the same expenses. The Conservative Party opposed Rebate Double-Dipping; Elections Canada defended it. This may be the first time in history that a political party went to court to try to give money back to Elections Canada.

Mr. Justice H.J. Wilton-Siegel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice accepted the Party’s position. Technically, this means that the Party’s 2004 and 2006 election returns will now reflect the GST rebates it received. Practically, this is good news for taxpayers who should not be burdened with supporting political parties twice for the same expenditure.

Will today’s ruling affect other political parties? If they benefitted from Rebate Double-Dipping then it is possible that they might owe refunds to Elections Canada. We are not commenting on the implications for other parties.

Tags: I am the MSM, Now watch Anon Liberal get all weepy

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

This is what it's all about:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/09/01/1…

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

Elections Canada should thank them for the money and then announce they aren't pursuing the case any further. That would certainly piss Harper off.
Jan

CTV is now reporting it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

You aren’t likely to read about this in the mainstream media…

The PMO is sounding more and more like a typical paranoid rightwing blogger every day. At the rate they're descending into adolescence by the time Parliament resumes they'll be issuing press releases referring to the Liberals as Lieberals.

Guy

Except they're right

http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

Indeed. Has the CBC, CTV, G&M, or National post mentioned this?

Seems they have a point. All due respect to Wells for doing the job the other guys' news reporters should be doing.

catherine

The PMO is sounding more and more like a typical paranoid rightwing blogger every day.

Yup. That's our PM. The world is obviously out to get him.
http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

"by the time Parliament resumes…"

How about "if"….

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

vewy vewy scawy. We're all doomed.

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

Nah, not doomed. Just annoyed.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Wow, funny how this case has been almost ignored by the media, a case that is bad news for the Libs and NDP, while the cases against the Conservatives have been front-and-center.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Blamo Blamo

Yeah. Cuz they're all out to get you, right?
Gayle

Bad news for the liberals? They were not part of the litigation.

wilson

But they will have to pay back lots of moola to the Cdn taxpayer……
Dippers didn't double dip.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Well, if they double-dipped, they should pay it back.
Gayle

Yes wilson, while we really have no idea what the case says, what you say may be true. However, SCF here seems to think the media should be all over it just because in the result, the LPC, who only followed the rules set by EC, may have to pay back some money.

It is not, as SCF puts it, a "case against" the liberals – the liberals were not part of this litigation. It is a case against Elections Canada.

It is a pretty boring slant and non issue to this story. The bigger issue (and even that is stretching it) is that the CPC and EC were involved in litigation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/geogine geo

It's not that the media or anyone else is ignoring Harpers assorted bits of litigation, it's just that he's got so many going on. And now we learn of some he's kept secret like the case with the MPCC and that one is three years old. How many cases does he have on the fly? What happens if he loses his PM gig, does all this litigation just go away or does the poor loser who inherits his mess get to sort it out? Bet it all hits the news then? If he had lost do you think he would want the press? And did he have Dimitri call CBC, (they have CTV on retainer) and all the rest and tell them that the judge had made a decision? Didn't they send out a photo?

Anon Liberal

"We are not commenting on the implications for other parties."

All these PMO press releases sound like they're written by passive-aggressive a-holes.

Jan

What do you mean ' sounds like'?

Anon Liberal

Touché

http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

Didn't our political parties used to be able to, like, communicate in something other than a five-year-old's petulant expressions of petty victimhood? Either the Conservatives are shutting down this or the mainstream media is ignoring that or this was offensive or the Liberals are insensitive or just stop it before I send you all to your rooms.

It's getting to the point where even when they have a good point, I instinctively loathe our politicians for saying anything at all because it's so hard to separate occasional moments of amateurish if sincere statesmanship from partisan titty-twisting.
Anon

So this is their focus on the economy then?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Of course, Elections Canada could just appeal this and take it to Federal Court and up… so it might be a tad premature for the PMO to be gloating.

Pundits' Guide

I didn't think the Federal Court was an appeal court for provincial Superior Courts. I think the appeal would have to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal, wouldn't it?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

That's probably correct.. but regardless, it would eventually get to the higher courts if either of the 2 participants in the court battle wanted to go as far as they could with this.

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

Appeals are difficult. While an appellete court can overrule errors of law, findings of fact are given much deference, as are discretionary decisions of courts of first instance.

The first win is always the big one.

Gayle

This was based on a legal interpretation, not a factual one, so the difficulty you cite is not relevant here.

The last win is the big one. The first one is often meaningless.

kcm

"Mayrand also said the proposed Tory change would make for an unlevel playing field by effectively boosting campaign spending limits for some parties but not others."

What's with this,and did the judge take it into considertion? Perhaps as RM says EC will take the money and say piss off? No doubt the Tories are bragging about saving taxpyers money, while neglecting to mention any incurred advantages for them.
Pundits' Guide

From what I can gather, the written decision, when it comes, should be posted here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/nav/date/2009_12…

I was asking a similar question to KCM on Twitter as well. I don't see how the GST rebates themselves could be found to have reduced campaign spending. Surely the GST itself is either an election expense or it's not. This point would be relevant to the parties who did not file for GST rebates (i.e., parties other than the Conservatives and Liberals).

Anyways, we'll just have to wait for the ruling to see, I suppose.

Guy

The argument/idea is that a GST rebate is essentially a return of an advance. If I'm a campaign and I pay you $100 as an advance on a $90 good or service, you will return the $10 to me. I'd record a $10 as a "return on advance", which reduces my expenditure. My net expense becomes $90. That's distinct from recording a $100 expense and $10 revenue.

Pundits' Guide

Understood. So in election-finance-land that would mean the $10 was never an election expense. Not that it WAS for the parties who didn't file for GST rebates but WASN'T for those who did.

Election finance rules have to be applied evenly. Which is why I'm now wondering how the ruling would apply to the parties who didn't file for GST rebates, and why I'm curious to read it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

How about we make a rule that political parties can't file for GST rebates, and then everything is fair? I agree I don't want them reimbursed twice, but it seems equally unfair to only reimburse some of the parties.

Jesse

Why on earth would a party refuse to apply for the GST rebate ?

Tha'ts the question I want answered first. Is there some other benefit they're recieving or alternative filing method ?

PS – I totally agree about not subsidizing political parties. I want them to remove all subsidies for political parties in the new budget in march !
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Well, yes, that's the other side of the same coin, isn't it? Is a political party considered a Public Service Body? Does it depend on some dollar figure? I mean, if I'm the Marxist-Lenonist party, I'm not likely to make the same level of expenditures as the Conservatives. I am not the Marxist-Lenonist party, and so have no idea how much they would spend on any election campaign, but you only need to be registered for GST if you have income of $35,000 per year. I'm guessing that maybe the smaller political parties don't make $35,000, and therefore would not register for GST. If you aren't registered, you can't collect a rebate. Also, if you donate $200 to a political party, are you really only donating $190? Or does the GST come in only on things like the dinners, conventions, and other "party" parties?
Pundits' Guide

The story specifically says that it's a GST rebate due to a non-profit organization for half its GST costs. So it's not the same thing as a business entity or self-employed person registering for a GST number and then paying or claiming the difference between GST levied and GST on input costs.

That was certainly part of my confusion at first, too, Jenn_, but on re-reading the story I came to see the distinction.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

My confusion continued because I read the Guide to the Quick Method for accounting for public service bodies (includes non-profit organizations allowed by the Minister). I didn't actually get into the math, but it seemed that income was still very relevant, just the GST collected didn't need to be tracked.

I'm just saying that if you spend, say, $2,000 in a year, your GST rebate would only be $50, and I can't imagine many organizations thinking it was worth the hassle of registering for GST for that kind of money unless they had to.
Jesse

So I take this to be a rare case where you will side with the Conservatives ?

It seems to me that the fairest way to go about this is to just get rid of the GST rebate like the Conservatives are suggesting.

It'll level the playing field for the smaller parties.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Yes, Jesse, that's why I stated (up a few comments) that I think political parties shouldn't get the GST rebate. But then you argued with me as if I'd said something nonsensical. To quote you, "Why on earth would a party refuse to apply for the GST rebate ?"

I'm glad you see it my way now.

I don't think it is what the Conservatives are suggesting, though. I think Pundits' Guide has it right, and the Conservatives are saying that since (some) parties get GST rebates, the GST rebate should reduce the funding from Elections Canada. I would agree with that instead, as long as it doesn't hurt parties that don't get the GST rebate. I don't agree with anybody getting both the GST rebate AND that money refunded from Elections Canada, but nor do I agree with any political party not getting either.
Jesse

I still don't know why on earth anyone would refuse to apply for the GST rebate!

I understand small parties if there is some sort of minimum amount but the NDP did not and I believe they maxed out their spending last election.

So its really confusing – was there free money and the NDP was too stupid to realize it ? Did they refuse it on prinicple ?

This whole situation is just weird and I wish instead of just throwing it out there that Paul Wells actually took the time to do some reporting, talk to legal experts, and explain it to us.

This isn't so much reporting as sharing a story tip !
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

It could very well be that the NDP refused on principle, since they were getting the money back from Elections Canada anyway. I don't think it is up to PW to educate us on everything, why didn't the Conservatives explain it to us in the news release they sent to PW (that he kindly linked to here)?

But at least you have been honest enough to show how this court challenge isn't to benefit the taxpayer, but rather the Conservative Party of Canada. My only problem is that you seem to have no problem with that, and I think that's sad.
Jesse

"My only problem is that you seem to have no problem with that, and I think that's sad."

A party acting in its own self interest, how shocking ! Oh wait, i'm not a Liberal.

Its only Liberals that seem to enjoy shooting themselves in the foot and are happy about losing.

New Liberal saying: We have no power, no platform, no ideas, but at least we're not those nasty Conservatives.

One would think that after so many years pride would be cold comfort.

This helps the tax payer. This helps my party. I'm pleased on both counts.

More things that would benefit tax payers/Conservatives also include eliminating all subsidies and the CBC.

We can only hope !
Pundits' Guide

I don't know too many other journalists who would take the time to put up a post on an issue like this at 7:30 PM on New Year's Eve. Do you? Can you think of many lawyers and/or political officials who might have been available to take his calls on it then, in order to write a longer story?
Jesse

Maybe if there was some diversity in Ottawa !

People who celebrate Chinese new year, Persian new year, Jehova's witness's (sorry about spelling if there's been some errors) all seem like people who would be available to take a comment on New Year's Eve or report on this situation.

I chuckled today when I saw a news anchor wishing a happy new year to several Iranian commentators who had just been on the show discussing the situation in Iran.

Willing to work on Christian/Western holidays seems like just one of many good reasons for diversity !
Pundits' Guide

I'm not sure who the first point refers to, but I don't recall taking a position, so I assume it wasn't me.

However, when I re-read the CP story, I'm not sure the Conservatives were taking the position that the GST rebate should be gotten rid of. To the contrary, they seemed even to be asking that the Chief Electoral Officer agree to recognize in advance of the 2008 election that the eventual value of their GST rebate should be taken into account when calculating their election expenses for the most recent campaign as well.

I believe it's correct to say that the Conservative position is that the public per-vote subsidies should be eliminated, but that the political parties should be treated as other non-profit organizations and be permitted to apply for GST rebates, the value of which would reduce the amount of their (rebatable) paid election expenses.

Is that your impression as well?
Jesse

Oh I see, so its not the GST rebate they're getting rid of, rather they're deducting the $ amount of the rebate from the funds given out as a political subsidy.

Either way works I suppose. Basically it gets rid of double dipping.

I suppose the benefit to the Conservatives is that it:

A) Increases spending limits since the rebate money isn't counted as an expense
B ) Makes the Liberals pay back money they can't really afford to pay back
Pundits' Guide

Yes to everything, except that it wouldn't be "deducting the $ amount of the [GST] rebate from the funds given out as a political SUBSIDY", but rather deducting from the certified paid election expenses eligible for a rebate from Elections Canada, thus reducing the amount of EC rebate the Conservative Party should have received. Hence the refund they were trying to give the Chief Electoral Officer, which led to the court case.

There, see … clear as mud, eh ! ;-)
Pundits' Guide

It sounds as though the Chief Electoral Officer wants to ensure things proceed in a level playing-field going forward, but it seems the issue before the courts relates to how to handle the situation retroactively. And I don't think we can comment any more knowledgeably now until the ruling is published.

Anon Liberal

Hey I made the tags! I just noticed now. Ha!

Happy new year everyone.
http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

Speaking of "Mainstream",

Terry Glavin, after lashing out at the press on their outrageous and irrisponsible hyping of the faux Aghan detainee scandal,

anxiously awaited the opinion of Matthew Fisher, among the most respected Journo on the subject. Fisher's conclusion to the MSM:

Shame on you.

Read the Glavin interview with Rex Murphy and Fisher's take here:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/12/news-ma…
http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

This, and the MSM overhyping AGW, then burying any contra studies, evidence and opinion, including laughable coverage of climategate,

not a good decade for the MSM.

The standard bearer for this sort of agenda journalism is of course the NY Times – whose readership and ad revenues have crumbled.

And in case you're saying it's news business in general, compare Wall Stree Journal, which is rising to now the most read paper in the US.

Mike T.

But a fantastic decade for extremist loonies!

Churchill

Well given that this one blog post seems to be the only mention of story on google news it seems as though the Tories have a bit of a point. And given that they won one might think CP might want to rethink the sneering tone it took it the earlier story….

http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

Exactly. It's hard to understand how the original lawsuit merited the long and detailed CP article by Cheadle that Wells referenced in the first comment of this post, but the victory of the lawsuit by the Conservatives merits…no coverage at all?

In what world other than one where the media is partisan does this make any sense?

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

The problem with this, and climategate, and the Van Jones, Acorn Videos in the US,

is that these stories get out through alternate media.

Problem for the MSM, that is, because the public learns to get news from alternate sources. Worse still, the public learns that the MSM must have known about these matters, but chose not to report them and that the choosing is obviously based on an agenda.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Milton Acorn is on YouTube ?? Great stuff !!

kcm

And i thought the alternative sources might expand our minds…then you have the case of Biff…it seems to merely to feed his paranoia.

http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

The internet has provided everyone with a different narrative. The MSM can't control the message.

http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

Why is a Elections Canada refusing to recover our money if they made an accounting mistake?

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) has learned that federal political parties owe taxpayers millions of dollars for over-payments of rebates, yet Elections Canada refuses to collect. CTF Federal Director, Kevin Gaudet, said “this is a massive over-payment of a political subsidy and it needs to be collected from all political parties that owe it.”
http://www.taxpayer.com/federal/political-parties…

http://www.ctf.ca/articles/News.asp?article_ID=38…

Why are some Political Parties refusing to pay back they money they owe?
http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

A final piece of advice to my journalist friends out there:

Lawyers must act for clients they may disagree with or don't particularly care for.

Architects must design buildings for their clients they personally find distateful or even ugly.

Doctors have taken an oath to treat the sick regardless of…well…anything almost. (cont'd at the break)
http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

It is only when journalists are able to develop this level of professionalism that they will have a chance to flourish.

Journalists overwhelmingly lean left – every study on the matter has shown this. The problem is, the assumptions, worldviews, angles, and decisions on what to report, or what facts to report within a story, also overwhelmingly reflect this fact.

The day when a left leaning journalist can do a full "good news" positive story about, say Bush, without the subtle dig, the negative spin, the reminder about the bad, that will be the day journalism can survive.

The day when "making a difference" stops being a goal – since the difference reflects the ideological result – and impartially, fully, and in a balanced way, reporting all the news that's newsworthy to all its readers (not just those who espouse the "correct views").

I look forward to that day.

Jan

Biff, you have your own blog to spread your little message. Stop boring Macleans readers with your lectures,

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

No counterpoint, or basis for disagreement (on an on-topic comment no less), just "shut up".

How predictably tolerant.

kcm

When's the last time you criticized the Becks and right wingnuts out there? Thought not. When you show an interest in criticizing those who'share your idealogical bias – cuz that's what it is, same as mine is generally but not exlusively liberal/left – then i will give you a serious hearing. You yell about bias on the left, but that's all you complain about…i suspect if we had a right wing authoritarian control of the madia you would remain silent.

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

kcm,

I don't hold myself out as being non-partisan. Nor, do I believe you hold yourself out as such.

I'm on one "team" and you on the other, so to speak. But the ref is supposed to call it as he sees it.

Further, my complaints don't apply to the Olbermans, on one side, and the Hannity's on the other. They're paid to be overtly opinionated for one side or the other.

It's when raw "news" is biased that's the problem. "The most trusted name in news", "news you can trust", "balanced reporting" is what the public is sold.

I'm not paid to be "balanced", I don't say "trust me to show both sides". Nor do you.

But the MSM does.
kcm

Biff, you make my point in a way. I have no difficulty with criticizing my "sides" positions, policies and ethical standing…because at bottom i believe [ perhaps it is merely an illusion] that i love true things [ as Steinbeck liked to say] So, i attempt to fight or challenge my biases…you i think don't make the effort…nothing matters except winning or being right. It's just my perception, but it leads me to distrust much of what you post.

Gayle

I don't know why the PMO is complaining. They chose to prorogue now when they knew most people are not paying attention. Hardly consistent to complain when the news they want to get out also goes unnoticed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Further down on this thread he references Van Jones and ACORN. Sufficed to say he's a full blown supporter of the Glen Beck School of Ideological Paranoia.
hardy joysan

the media will play this down as being partisan politics, yet somehow the judge has sided with the Conservatives, so it's more than just politics. It's getting to the point where even when they have a good point, I instinctively loathe our politicians for saying anything at all because it's so hard to separate occasional moments of amateurish if sincere statesmanship from partisan titty-twisting.

Important phone numbers, http://www.FreePhoneList.com
http://intensedebate.com/people/JCherniak JCherniak

I could have sworn I read about this in the Globe and Mail… just… yesterday.