Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The In-and-Out election

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, December 13, 2010 1:49pm - 73 Comments

The 2006 election campaign that brought Stephen Harper to power on a promise of new accountability continues to raise questions of accounting.

The Canadian Press has learned that chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand has taken the governing party to task for failing to properly report the cost of running two regional campaign offices in Quebec. The $107,000 tab was divvied up and claimed as a shared expense by 15 candidates in Montreal and Quebec City. They claimed the expense even though Elections Canada found many candidates never used the regional offices, which were staffed by central party workers involved in what appear to have been national campaign activities.

Pundits Guide has more.

Tags: campaign, campaign finance, campaign financing, democracy, election, elections canada, in-and-out, marc mayrand, Ottawa, Pundits Guide, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

In and out, and roundabout – the mulberry bush – plus over hill, over dale….

Cons are very good at the garden path too.
James Connors

Son of a gun; this government does not just seem to be stupid, they appear to be venal.
NorthernPoV

I guess it works. This anti-government government strategy.
De-fund, belittle or attack virtually every civil institution from Elections Canada, to nuclear safety, meat inspection, census, Police Chiefs, parliament and all its ancillaries, court challenges, long-gun rules, Military integrity, independent boards, evidence based decision making, etc etc
And watch your poll numbers hold or improve as the media swoons at Amateur-Pop-Star-PM and the opposition self immolates.
Congratulations and pass the eggnog.

http://twitter.com/jonatwitan @jonatwitan

Media swoons? Really, you really think the media "swoons" over our PM? Really?

Emily

Good grief, yes.
Mike T.

I certainly don't think he's been held to account adequately with what he's pulled.
Jenn_

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who dazzled Cabinet ministers, MPs, Senators and staffers last Wednesday night in Ottawa when he held an impromptu rock concert for the Tories' Christmas party, was voted the year's most valuable politician, according to this year's 14th All Politics Poll: The Best and Worst of Politics in 2010.

Mr. Harper (Calgary-Southwest, Alta.), who rocked out the Conservatives' annual shindig wearing a silky black shirt and black trousers, played songs by The Proclaimers, The Who, The Rolling Stones, and The Guess Who. The normally buttoned-down Prime Minister who generally doesn't like the national media in Ottawa, looked uncharacteristically unbuttoned and slightly groovy during his impromptu 20-minute concert with Herringbone, his own 24 Sussex Dr. garage band. He played the electric keyboard. He was accompanied by musicians Richard Linke on guitar and bass, Phil Nolan on drums and Andre Van Schyndel who played bass and accordion. Mr. Harper sang Neil Diamond's Sweet Caroline, The Proclaimers' I'm On My Way, a part of John Lennon's Imagine, The Who's The Seeker, The Guess Who's Share The Land. Mr. Harper pumped his fists, swung his microphone in the air like a golf club, and generally rocked it out at the casbah, so to speak." http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/allpolitics2…

Yes, I'd call that pretty close to swooning. At least I can hear the excited screams.

Jan

If it's not swooning, what is it – fawning?

tobyornotoby

I don't believe there was actual pooling of resources happening in any of these instances, so it's clearly a scam. There wouldn't be separate filings, and separate ceilings for candidate and national expenditures if there wasn't recognition in the law of the importance of both.

At the same time, however, I don't care very much if it was actually legal to do this or not, because in my view it's still an abuse of process that demeans the relevance of local campaigns and the role local candidates, who should be delivering their own message and running their own campaigns, as the very first test of accountability before becoming an elected representative.

Mike T.

That being said, surely you can see why it should be alarming if one party is not following rules put in place to preserve the fairness of elections for all parties? And why one should especially be concerned when the current government campagined on being better than the last guys, no matter how many times their dishonesty is brought to the forefront?

tobyornotoby

Yes. I guess what I'm saying is that even if the Conservative version of flim flammery prevails in law after all the appeals, the practice is still an affront to electoral democracy.

john g

Now that I think about, the CPC handled their 2006 campaign pretty stupidly.

They should have done it the way the Liberals did in 1997 and 2000. That was clearly the recipe for electoral cheating success. Because as far as I know, Elections Canada has not recovered one single red cent of any of the below; nor have they even tried. I'm pretty sure EC never staged a photo op by calling in the Mounties to raid Liberal HQ, with photographer in tow, for their election campaign documents.

Meanwhile, sandwiched around In and Out, and another court battle with the CPC to allow them to repay EC Elections Canada $591K in rebate double dips (I mean WTF…EC actually went to court to prevent the CPC from giving them money back?!?), they continue to grant countless extensions to the Liberal candidates from 2 leadership races ago who are now 4 years in arrears in paying off their leadership campaign debts which were supposed to have been paid off within 18 months. All they need to do is ask, and presto…another extension is granted.

You wonder why conservatives believe that Elections Canada's neutrality is a joke? Wonder no more.

Michel Béliveau: former director general, Liberal party, Quebec wing

Solicited between $250,000 and $300,000 from Corriveau during 1997 election campaign.
Received between $75,000 and $100,000 cash in an envelope in 1997 from Corriveau. Transaction was never entered in the party's books. "I didn't even ask for a receipt," he told the inquiry. Admits practice violated election laws.

Benoît Corbeil: former director general, Liberal party, Quebec wing
Confirmed he got $50,000 from Brault through Commando Communications Marketing and $50,000 cash to pay eight Liberal workers during 2000 election.

Marc-Yvan Côté: Liberal organizer for eastern Quebec ridings

Confirmed he received $120,000 cash in three instalments from Michel Béliveau to cover the expenses of candidates in 1997 election but no payments for the 2000 election. Says he took the cash in 1997 and distributed it to election workers.

Douglass

Let's just say your right about everything above They ran against such activities. They said they were bringing accountability back to Ottawa. Yes, they should face the bright lights of said accountability. We should demand it of all of our leaders.

john g

They ran against such activities

No they didn't. They ran against elections being funded out of brown paper bags of cash that mysteriously showed up in the hands of party bagmen, was scattered across ridings believed to be in trouble, and that didn't show up in the party's audited financial records. Such activities are grounds for deregistration if one reads the Elections Act. This is nowhere near the same ballpark. It's not even the same sport.

This is from what I can see in exactly the same vein as the previous In and Out complaint, a question on the distinction between local and national expenses. EC has already lost this battle in court; they are just opening it on a new front. There was no story then and there is no story now. There was no money stolen or passed around in brown paper bags. How much is EC's politically motivated vendetta costing taxpayers?

Douglass

Right. How can we expect them to be accountable when running on accountability. Gotcha.

LdKitchenersOwn

Hey, look, it's the "It's OK because the Liberals used to do it" defense!

That one never gets old.

john g

If "In and Out" was all the Liberals did they'd still be in power. The correct argument is "it's OK because the courts have already said it's OK". EC is just fishing.

Thwim

Wow. And if only the laws never ever ever changed, you might have a point…

..too bad you're pointless.

LdKitchenersOwn

Wait a second. You expect the government to follow the laws of today, and not the laws of circa 1997-2000???

Communist.

Mike T.

If the CPC dealt with their deceits as honestly as Martin and the Gomery Commission, we'd have a much better government.

Cicero

Aaron,
Check out the 4 April 2006 Speech from the Throne, page 14 for a good laugh – "Bringing Accountability Back to Government"
ex-canuck

I was going to ask Mr Wherry why in the world Maclean's pays him for his snti harper scribbling. well, I guess it is to keep the regulars above scribbling with their own anti Harper bile. My God, does this magazine need an overhaul. Mr Coyne, do something. You are losing it.

Douglass

Are you able to refute whats written above? Your criticism of the regulars is noted, but that not a blank cheque on THIS governments misdeeds. Take the politics out of this. Are you a=okay with the government (any government) flagrantly breaking the election rules to assist their entry into power?
brooster2

Then, why don't you just go away until they fix it to your standards. We'll let you know when that's done. Really.

Orson Bean

In case you haven't noticed, that's sort of what's been happening around here, i.e., people "going away". Slowly but surely, most of the non-partisan posters are leaving, so that this is becoming an echo chamber for pro-LPC, anti-Harper hacks.

Richard_S_Argent

Really? You're certain of that? Who has "left" that you would define as "non-partisan"?

john g

Gaunilon and Olaf for starters. Sean Stokholm as well.
Richard_S_Argent

And you're know why they're not posting anymore? Mightn't they might just be busy?

Olaf tends to come and go with the seasons (posts a lot in the summer, not so much anytime else), Sean is a stay-at-home parent if I recall correctly…

brooster2

Hey, I have no problem with "non-partisan" (I take that to mean "right wing") commenters participating here. I enjoy debating issues with them.

What I don't understand is, if they come to the party of their own volition, why do they turn around and criticize the host?

Orson Bean

Because the host is a nauseatingly predictable pro-LPC, anti-Harper hack?

Just a guess.
brooster2

How about sticking to the issues instead of engaging in gratuitous ad hominem attacks on the blogger? I mean, if you hold the blogger's viewpoint in such contempt, why grace his board with your presence?
Orson Bean

I'm a Maclean's reader and have been for many years. I've helped fund the blogger's salary.

What I object to, and it's just my personal opinion, is Maclean's having such an obvious partisan be their "reporter" on what goes on in question period. If Wherry's blog and articles were more obviously labelled as clear partisan opinion, I'd have less of a problem with them. It's Wherry's masquerading as a reporter on the HOC that bothers me, because I think that reporting on events (unless clearly labelled as an opinion piece) brings with it some responsibility to be, and be seen as, non-partisan. On that count, Wherry gets a F.
Richard_S_Argent

Wherry actually responded to similar criticism from Olaf during the summer. You should try and find it…you'll feel differently, I guarantee it.
john g

Are you sure? Because if he did, he posted it from somewhere other than his IntenseDebate account. I went through his comment stream there and the only criticism I saw Aaron respond to there was somebody taking a ridiculous shot at him for pointing out something Michaelle Jean said on her way out.

Too bad. I would certainly have been very interested to read such a response. Aaron does this exist and if so would you please post it?
brooster2

I don't consider Wherry a "reporter" nor do I suspect he claims to be one in his coverage of the House. He's a columnist, and columnists are paid to express opinions, like Worthington, Travers, Delacourt, et al.

Anyway, why do you expect Macleans to be virtuously non-partisan when no other major print medium in the country has achieved, or even aspires to, that mythical status? Personally, I care less for Macleans' current format and editorial stance than I did for its earlier iterations, but that's my own taste and bias.

Perhaps your complaint with Macleans is that they need to assign a reporter as well as a columnist to cover the House.
Orson Bean

Yes, that could well be. To me, though, it's about truth in advertising. I can't believe I'm holding Warren Kinsella out as an exemplar, but to his credit, WK comes out often and says "this is a Liberal partisan blog. Deal with it." I appreciate that candour and honesty. If Wherry just came out and clearly identified his blog as pro-Liberal and anti-CPC (which it so obviously is), then I could grudgingly respect him. But he, to my knowledge, has never done that. Although I dislike political partisans as a rule, I have far less of a problem with a partisan who has the integrity of saying "I'm a partisan".
brooster2

I can see that, although I don't think he's trying to deceive anyone that his stuff is objective reportage, sans opinion. It's definitely slanted.
TJCook

"What I don't understand is, if they come to the party of their own volition, why do they turn around and criticize the host?"

Yup, I agree with that. But it's totally at odds with: "…this is becoming an echo chamber for pro-LPC, anti-Harper hacks."

Also: "Non-partisan" and "right-wing" are not the same thing. Jeez, what's your point exactly?
brooster2

My point was that I don't understand why people hang out on a comment board with whose viewpoint they disagree, only to trash the blogger and the forum.

Either debate the issues or go frequent places more sympathetic to your particular bias.

And thanks, I know "non-partisan" doesn't mean "right wing". Neither is "partisan" restricted to "pro-LPC, anti-Harper hack", as insinuated by Bean.
Orson Bean

"Either debate the issues or go frequent places more sympathetic to your particular bias. "

But that's part of my point — a lot of the time these days, what goes on on this board isn't "debate." Wherry makes a post trashing the CPC, the government and/or Harper. Wherryites pile on and emphatically agree that the CPC, the government and/or Harper suck. The only difference between the posts being the different ways in which the various Wherryites all agree that the CPC, the government and/or Harper suck. There's about as much "debate" in that as there is in your average North Korean newspaper.

I actually find Warren Kinsella's blog considerably less partisan than this one. Which is really weird, because he's a guy who explicitly runs a partisan blog.
brooster2

Back to my original question: why hang out in a place where you, evidently, feel uncomfortable with the prevailing point of view and don't see opportunities for genuine discussion or debate? No one compels you to participate.

Having said that, I wouldn't care to see you disappear from these discussions.

By the way, you read Korean, do you?
Orson Bean

But I can easily throw the converse point back at you — why would you want to frequent a comment board where everyone agrees with one another? To me, it's like some sort of dystopia out of an Orwell or Huxley novel.
brooster2

I suppose one haunts territory where kindred spirits abide for the sake of validation. I'm guilty of that but, having said so, I tend to focus on contrary points of view to challenge, debate or argue.

I also often visit sites/media with whose views I strongly disagree and find that I can at least recognize a well-crafted argument. I may challenge the author's position but I wouldn't attack them personally, as some seem to be doing here with Wherry. I would hope I'd refrain from crapping on a writer rather than their argument. That's the essence of my original observation (above).
Orson Bean

That's fair comment. I find that there's a tipping point with political websites, blogs and comment boards, though. Some remain relatively civil, vibrant and forums for genuine debate. Others just go completely off the deep end, and those are the ones that bother me, because they really become pools of groupthink and ugly intolerance for any alternative point of view. For instance, Rush Limbaugh's website. Another non-web example is various Fox News shows. I basically can't watch Fox News, even though I'm hardly a lefty. And there are left-leaning sites that are similar — rabble.ca being an example, where it's basically a propaganda site. I just can't see how people get off on that sort of thing.
brooster2

Ditto. I rarely read Linda McQuaig because I find I can pretty much finish her her sentences. I also don't bother with rabble.ca for essentially the same reason. And for me, Fox and Limbaugh are just purveyors of outright fabrications. One right-wing commentator whose views often strike me (to my own surprise) as fair and thought-provoking is David Frum. (Oops…that'll get me some thumbs-down in this neighbourhood).
Orson Bean

I agree about Frum — he has shown a marked tendency to speak and write independently in recent years, and to (1) try to bridge the partisan divide in the US and (2) try to bring some of the nuttier and more rabid elements of the US Republican party under control and back to reality. For that he deserves credit. And note that in the US (as opposed to Canada), he is now most frequently and vociferously attacked by . . . far-right Republicans, who attack him as a sellout etc. I know what you mean — it's hard to believe that the "Axis of Evil" author now comes across almost like a senior statesman, but that's partly a reflection of how warped the US Republican and Tea Party movements have become.
john g

I actually find Warren Kinsella's blog considerably less partisan than this one.

That's only because Warren is on the outs with the OLO right now. He is always much more interesting to read when he doesn't have a dog in the fight.

But the comment is true for the Calgary Grit. His blog is fairer to the CPC than this one.
Orson Bean

John g, I'm aware of WK's being on the outs with the OLO, but I'm not just talking about what WK posts. His comment section does not consist of the pro-LPC pile-on that you see here. There's actual back-and-forth debate and diversity of opinion, instead of one LPC partisan after another talking about how awful Harper and his govt are.
Holly Stick

You do realise, don't you, that not everyone is a Conservative or a Liberal? Some of us who dislike Harper and his dreadful policies are not crazy about the current Liberals either.

And much of the criticism of Harper is because there is much that deserves to be criticized. Deal with it.
Orson Bean

I'm not a Conservative or a Liberal so yeah, I realize that.
Orson Bean

And as for your latter point, it merely confirms your Wherryite credentials (of which I was already aware).
Halo_Override

HE'S IN YOUR HOUSE! WHERRY'S WRITING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!

For goodness sakes, old bean, get over yourself.

Blue

There are about 25 Liberal posters on this site that are so predictable that I usually avoid reading their contributions—-what`s the use, if they are not repeating the same old complaints then they are busy back-slapping each other.

And Wherry is like a Sunday morning preacher—preaching to the choir, knowing what their reaction will be.

Halo_Override

And then there's you.

Mike T.

Dude, the absolute last people to leave this bit of cyberspace will be a none-to-small contingent of conbots and some outwardly more reasonable sounding "channel changers."
burlivespipe

That's the typical CON defence — she/he disagrees with us, 'partisan Liberal hack!'… Linda Keen, maynard, a growing list of people who had pretty impressive credentials, none that said they were liberal party members until the CONs stepped into it and needed a strawman to burn.
Lame.

Orson Bean

Thank you for so aptly demonstrating precisely what I'm talking about — the enforcement of uniform groupthink that goes on on this comment board. If I'm not a Harper-bashing Wherryite, I must be a "CON" or a "Conbot". FYI, the list of policies and decisions of this govt with which I disagree is very long. To list just a few:

- I opposed the GST cut
- I'm in favour of same-sex marriage
- I'm in favour of keeping Insite open and expanding the program
- I'm in favour of fully legal and taxed marijuana
- I'm in favour of legal, regulated and taxed prostitution
- I'm pro-gun control
- I opposed the scrapping of the manadatory long-form census

Does that sound like a "CON' or "Conbot" to you? Get real.

Richard_S_Argent

You know, when you explicitly run a "we're not crooks like the other guys" campaign…you probably shouldn't engage in dodgy accounting practices. Call me crazy but I think if you're elected on a reform platform, it would behoove you to follow through on your promises…not ignore them immediately.

This sort of thing makes it VERY hard to convince those who are politically apathetic that there's a point to voting at all. It's what I hate most about these Conservatives, they make you either a sucker or a cynic.

Dave

You didn't read the fine print, where it says "We are a completely different kind of crook."

Philanthropist

Legitimate expenses were shared among candidates! OMG! We need a Royal Commission! Staffed by corrupt Liberals who have media toadies on speed-dial! Obviously. LOL! Next….

burlivespipe

maynard was appointed by harper. the mistake was he forgot to have the ethics removed from the man before putting him in the post. Maybe Harper should wait til he's on his death bed then offer a financial 'incentive' to get what he wants..

Holly Stick

He could send Fatwa Flanagan to dxo the dirty work.

Halo_Override

You're an inspiring non-partisan.

NOT a subscriber

So some people think an accounting difference of opinion over 107,000 dollars (of CPC monies) equates to the millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars the Liberals were fooling with? Ok!

And Wherry suggests an election over it?

Why not!

I'm sure the CPC can easily cover their amount due.

Can the Liberals?

And howze that Leadership debt thing going for the Liberals?
chet

Ahh yes, the great scandal of the CPC spending their own money, but putting the accounting in the x leger vs. the y leger.

Remember the good ol days when campain scandals meant stealing tens of millions of taxpayers dollars and laundering them via under the table brown paper bags?

The days when the Liberals were in power that is.

brooster2

You're as tiresomely repetitious as the commenters you disparage. You seriously need new material (and a spellchecker).
Thwim

If we're going to have crooks in, I'd prefer the crooks who were able to run a surplus while doing it.

chet

So the "scandal du jour" approach (too many to mention, including the….gasp….its almost unthinkable….seeking to shorten a FORTY page census[gate]) hasn't yeilded the desired results,

so the next step is to try to recycle old ones.

How sad. How very, very sad for a once great party and their followers.
john g

Thanks Aaron for the insight (and thanks to Crit for digging it up).

Orson Bean

I don't mean to be churlish, and I appreciate that Aaron took the trouble to make that post, but . . . I still find it a bit of a dodge. Nowhere in his post there does Aaron address the obvious elephant in the room, i.e., that he's clearly in the bag for the Liberal Party of Canada and, more to the point, that the overwhelming majority of his posts are anti-Harper and anti-CPC in nature. Isn't it a funny coincidence that 99.9% of the things that Aaron finds "interesting, noteworthy, silly, funny, ridiculous, important and, periodically, outrageous" all just happen to be insults in one form or another directed at the CPC, the government and/or Stephen Harper? If Wherry were insulting and offending all and sundry, I'd have no problem at all. But the fact is, he's engaged in an extended partisan exercise.

Richard_S_Argent

Critical of Harper's Conservatives = "clearly in the bag for the Liberal Party of Canada"

What a wonderfully manichean world you inhabit. You must be one of those non-partisans you keep talking about.

Orson Bean

I sure as hell am compared to Wherry and the Wherryites.

http://www.linkedin.com/companies/merger-law-associates-ltd. Julius C.

Once the Liberals got away with it you can't blame the Conservatives for trying it…