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 House passes judgment

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 11:32am - 143 Comments

Last evening, by a count of 152-139, the House of Commons passed the following motion.

That, in the opinion of the House, the Conservative Party of Canada’s “in and out” electoral financing scheme was an act of electoral fraud and represents an assault on the democratic principles upon which Parliament and our electoral system are based, and that, further, the House calls upon the Prime Minister to: (a) order the immediate repayment of any and all illegally obtained electoral rebates that were paid out to candidates for the Conservative Party of Canada as a result of the “in and out” fraud; and (b) remove all individuals facing charges for this fraud from any position of responsibility within Government or the Conservative Party of Canada.

Yesterday’s debate begins here and continues here.

Tags: house of commons, in-and-out, Parliament

More by Aaron Wherry

Mike T.

Can they do that?

Stewart_Smith

My understanding is that Parliament can pass such a statement, which "calls" on the government to carry out certain actions, but that such a motion is not binding on the government.
LdKitchenersOwn

The House can state their opinion and call upon the government to do such and such pretty much whenever they like.

The PM and the government are under no obligation to heed their call though, and of course they won't.
Thwim

They can pass a motion that the sky turn green if they want.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Yes. And, as stated by others, it is non-binding. However, as Chantal Hebert suggests in her column today, motions like these raise the stakes so high that it becomes almost impossible for the opposition to pass budgets of governments they say has committed fraud, corruption, etc.

wilson

Didn't stop the Dippers from propping up Martin after the LPC paid back $1.4 million in stolen taxpayer money.
Elections Canada did not investigate.

Didn't stop the Bloc from renewing their Coalition of Losers contract last month, with the Adscam party, with $40 million in stolen taxpayer money meant to 'win Quebec' still unaccounted for.

MostlyCivil

Seriously. It took you way too long to bring up Adscam.

Problem is, people are getting confused about Adscam. Is it the one with the scam and the advertising agencies, or the one with the sam and the advertising?

Can we call this Adscam 2? I'm going to.

D.D.S

People on other news blogs already are….
Halo_Override

I'm going with Adscam 2: The Reckoning, in direct opposition to those who favor Adscam 2: Electric Boogaloo.
D.D.S

Really!…I like Adscam 2: A New Beginning
MostlyCivil

Adscam 2: This time, it's administrative!

TimesArrow

My feeling is they're getting all this "on the record", so to speak, before pulling the plug ;so they can go to the public with a parliamentary charge sheet. Building a case in their eyes i suppose.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I think it reeks of desperation, and Canadians won't buy it for a second. There's a part of me that can't believe the opposition would be this stupid. But maybe that's just me. Who knows.

Reverend_Blair

What reeks of desperation is the lame excuses the Conservatives have been serving up.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Fine. Fight an election over this nonsense. Give Harper a majority. What do I care? lol
lgarvin

Fine.

Fight an election over this nonsense.

Give Harper a majority.

What do I care?

You sound like every girl I ever broke up with. Should we call you a cab or do you want to flounce home?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Larry, what in the world are you whining about now? You're now suggesting that I view opposition supporters on here as boyfriends who've dumped me? What are you smoking these days, dude.

TimesArrow

You may be right. They certainly are at least thinking about choosing their ground to fight on – which you can't blame them for. I'd feel more confident as a lib if they had an endictment from the prosecutor or a final say from the SCoC. However it's not at all sure they will here the case – though that wont stop the CPC from screaming that all through the election. Desparate? Maybe, if they haven't done their homework properly. It is possible the opposition is playing this smart [ politically, not so sure morally] in that this represents a weak time for the cons on this front and that is the time to strike, not after a budget that blunts their: this is nothing but a undemocratic and unscrupulous govt that will stop at nothing to hide the evidence of their sins message.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

But there's nothing there. It's all tied up in process. Since when do we convict people before the fact? This will be seen as a desperate measure. They can't even wait until the budget.

I think the Conservatives are licking their chops over this. The coalition is desperate for power. Simple. Majority on a platter.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

"Since when do we convict people before the fact? "

In the Court of Public Opinion. Happens all the time.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

You're kidding yourself – you all are – if you think that's what's happening now. I'm just saying. It's the opposition's funeral, not mine. They gotta explain it to voters. Good luck.

Claudia Lemire

TA, they can do as much as they want if wont help or make a difference, the biggest issue the Liberal party has is Ignatieff, I know is stupid but true!

TimesArrow

You're whistling in the dark.[ he's no Dion] No one knows how he'll perform in an election. My guess he'll do quite well. He's no stranger to the camera and he's used to thinking on his feet. And he will at least get a chance to directly counter the attack ads directly. He wont win a majority, but if he's smart that's probably not his goal.

Halo_Override

I'd like to see a Harper vs Ignatieff public debate.

I'd also like to see a list of the reasons Harper Government supporters might be against it.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I've listened to him and I don't share your enthusiasm. And he hasn't even been through the ringer of an election campaign yet. Canadians at least liked Dion for his past record as minister. Iggy has a much higher hill to climb on that score, for one.
Claudia Lemire

I am telling you Ignatieff is not electable mark my words!
Jan

What do you base that on? I never believed Harper was electable.

briguyhfx

Paying back the illegally refunded, falsely (i)nvoiced money would be a good start. Paying for the government's (Elections Canada) legal expenses would probably be a good idea, too. It could even be good optics, if they said "We accept the judgement of the court and apologize for the mistake. The Conservative Party doesn't accept that there should be national campaign ad spending limits, and will introduce a bill to remove those limits in this session of parliament, to insure that this kind of misunderstanding can't happen again."

Instead, the official response will be "they did it, too" (which is false), "we're the victims of a politicized department" (headed by a con appointee), "activist judges", "ADSCAM!" and "whiney whine whine whine".

brooster2

The problem here is that the CPC has yet to be "convicted" of the offense, inasmuch as the court hasn't rendered a judgment on the matter.

As guilty of the scam as I suspect they are, I think it's understandable that they'd now await that verdict rather than simply concede the case and, by implication, admit any premeditated fraud.

If they are ultimately found guilty, they will, no doubt, protest that they merely misunderstood the intent of the legislation and its administrative complexities…sort of an "Oops! Our bad…no foul intended".

I'm not defending their stance, merely trying to figure out their strategy. Admitting their "guilt" in this affair, so close to a possible election, just ain't gonna' happen.
MostlyCivil

best part? We can call this ADSCAM too. Think about it.

They yell ADSCAM!
We yell ADSCAM 2!

Kinda kills the talking point, no?

chet

(cont'd)

What is fascinating is our "investigative" journalists seem not to want to ask the most logical question, that is: did this routine, widespread and institutionally enshrined method of allocation that the NDP utilized (the "in and out") continue on during the writ period.

The most likely answer appears to be that they wouldn't and couldn't have turned the whole system on a dime, post writ.

But alas, the question is never asked by our "investigative journalists",

for the magnifying glass is on the CPC, the blind eye is turned to the others.

A scandal of epic proportions to be sure.
Reverend_Blair

The media have been looking into it. They found the Conservatives were just making crap up.
Guest

You are kidding me, Right?

Mike T.

I will leave you to think about it.

Stuart P.

What are you talking about? Anyone with half a brain knows that this story has been suppressed by the right wing media for just over four years now.

The fact that the it has received a fair amount of media coverage recently isn't because of some imaginary left wing media agenda you've concocted. It's because the truth yearns to be free and sometimes this country's thugish neo-con media barons just can't keep it from surfacing.

TimesArrow

Half a brain…you're being a little charitiable, aren't you?

Stewart_Smith

Q. for alfanerd, Haven't you already conceded that you are concerned (and don't understand) why the Conservatives used fraudulent invoices?

On another note, I also agree the slur on the intellectually challenged above is neither clever nor called for, and hope you will stop. Currently you are the most coherent of the consistently, unabashed Conservative supporters on here and it is a shame for your views to be degraded by a poor choice of slur.

alfanerd

Q. for alfanerd, Haven't you already conceded that you are concerned (and don't understand) why the Conservatives used fraudulent invoices?

Yes. Im still unclear as to the totality of the allegations against the conservatives. Many people think they get it, but they dont. I get some of it, and im aware that i dont have the full picture (a known unknown, as Rumsfeld would say). This includes the invoices – im not sure of the circumstance surrounding the invoices. The most 'promising' (if you're a lib supporter) allegation i've seen so far is that the conservatives tried to allocate spending related to ads broadcast in the GTA to a candidate in Qc city. That would be brazen and stupid, and i would never defend that. But, I've yet to see these allegations properly sourced (i dont consider a comment on these boards as a source), and I doubt that the Conservatives would be so brazen, although I might end up wrong.

On another note, I also agree the slur on the intellectually challenged above is neither clever nor called for

No, it was not. But frankly, I put up with a lot of abuse on these boards, and sometimes I feel like dishing some back. Im not here to make friends, and im specially not here to be politically correct. "libtard" or "retard" is just a word. If people use it as an insult, it is not meant to "slur the intellectually challenged", even though every sensitive ninny takes it that way. Are you also offended when somebody uses the term 'insane'? because that term was also used to mean 'intellectually challenged', until 'insane' became 'retarded' (more politically correct at the time, seriously), and then that became 'intellectually challenged'. and guess what, people call each other 'intellectually challenged' as an insult too. and whatever they come up with next will be an insult right away as well.

Currently you are the most coherent of the consistently, unabashed Conservative supporters on here and it is a shame for your views to be degraded by a poor choice of slur.

your point is well taken.

MostlyCivil

Using "retard" isn't politically incorrect, alfanerd.

It's just mean.

You have an excellent vocabulary. Use that to insult, as needed.

alfanerd

fair enough.

Crit_Reasoning

alfanerd, just wanted to say that I appreciate your contributions to these boards. Don't let them grind you down.

alfanerd

thanks CR, likewise.

TJCook

"No, it was not. But frankly, I put up with a lot of abuse on these boards, and sometimes I feel like dishing some back."

Dishing it back???

Look, I appreciate that you're not here spouting Con talking points, and some of your arguments are worth considering in detail. But you, alfanerd, are often the first to throw civility out the window and hurl verbal feces around. See "libtard" above, both unprovoked and unnecessary.

Hey, to thine own self be true, but don't go blaming others for your aggressive, insulting comments.
Stewart_Smith

The point to the question is: isn't that enough. If I am required to submit expense receipts, but for some reason I do not have the appropriate documentation,there are mechanisms to deal with that. However, one of those mechanisms is not to "create" new receipts. If I do make up those missing receipts, or alter existing receipts then it is a serious violation of my obligations and I would be likely fired.

It is known that this is the minimum which happened. The above does not (by itself) constitute fraud in the legal sense, but any organization that tolerated submission of false documents would be seen as organizationally complicit if fraud did occur. Based on the above, the Conservatives should be self policing and removing those that participated in the submission of inappropriate documentation from positions of authority.

One reason this action is difficult for the Conservatives is that it is also clear that the In&Out process was a central, strategic decision. (The optics of one or even several candidates making stupid decisions is completely different)
At the central level, the Conservative party has access to excellent legal advise, impressive communications staff etc. This was not a mistake, it was a decision.

Finally as you note, it is not yet proven that the Conservatives made this decision to financially benefit. If they did, then it really is fraud and lots of them should go to jail. Let's assume that can't be proven to the standards required by law for a conviction. We are then left with a Mulroney. A situation where strange and inappropriate behavior took place over an extended period, where the most logical assumption implies illegal behavior and absolutely no creditable alternative is offered by the accused. I do not envy Conservatives who felt compelled to defend Mulroney. Even if he cannot be convicted of a crime, it is a fact that he acted in a fashion that is wholly inappropriate for a former PM during that episode. Moreover, in the aftermath he clearly put his personal interests above those of his country. Why anyone would applaud the Conservative party for following that leadership is beyond me.

alfanerd

on invoices: it could point to something minor, or something major. it's not nothing, but it may be something very small as well.

as for the in/out scheme which was a central decision, the in/out scheme is legal. the specific implementation of it may have been illegal in some cases. so there is nothing wrong with making a central decision to implement an in/out scheme. the extent to which the higher-ups were involved in the details which made this illegal is still unknown as far as i can tell.

we're still far from mulroney or adscam. stealing money is clearly wrong, people understand this on a very basic level, and there are no excuses for it.

trying to maximize the amount you can spend of your own $ in a campaign within a set of complicated rules is not quite as egregious. i understand liberals want to capitalize on this – as they should, this is the name of the game. but it will be more difficult to do so then with adscam.

Stewart_Smith

Sorry, but I question your concept of minor. The Canada Elections Act (section 403) explicitly requires the submission of receipts and explicitly states that

No financial agent of a registered association
shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a financial
transactions return that
(a) the financial agent knows or ought reasonably to
know contains a materially false or misleading statement;

so if the receipts were doctored and the Conservatives knew they were modified then the Conservative's are guilty of breaking the Canada Election Act. This is independent of whether they gained by doing so.

I would concede that minor transgressions of the Act are possible. If it only involved one maverick MP for example. However, this appears to be a central decision, that one component of the In&Out was to submit misleading and in some cases false documentation. A strategic decision by a political party to violate the very Act that defines much of our democratic process can hardly be called minor

wilson

PLEASE bring down the Harper Government before the budget….
NDP and Bloc following Ignatieff over the cliff like Coalition lemmings is priceless.

Warren Kinsella:
"I don’t want us reduced to third party status.
I think going now, and going on the ethics theme, will lead to a majority Harper Government."

http://warrenkinsella.com/2011/03/to-campaign-or-…
TimesArrow

Oh dear! Have they been hitting you up for protection money again?

TimesArrow

Oops…wonder if i my sarcasm meter isn't on? Tap, tap…seems ok.

peter

News Release.

In a strictly partisan vote along party lines, the more numerous kettles succeeded in calling the less numerous pots "black". Although the matter remains before the courts and original Federal Court decision was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal the CPC will no doubt seek leave to appeal that decision.

Sadly, the opposition parties chose to pass on an opportunity to review the poorly drafted Elections Canada language in question and/or examine the actual wide spread nature of the purported violations by all parties.

Frequent Conservative critic and former colleague of the Prime Minister, Gerry McNichols at the CCC, opined recently that this whole affair is a vendetta by EC against one its most vocal critics.
-30-

TimesArrow

It's not at all sure the SC will hear this case as there appears to be no open question concerning the law.

That's a pretty naive opinion as to why the opposition is pressing their case. Do you really think Harper would not press as hard if he were in opposition now…silly question isn't it? And nice try at insinuating all parties are equally guilty – try looking at the next blog over for the official explanation.

If Nicholls [ i think you meant] is even halfway correct it certainly speaks to Harper's ability to make important enemies…again no supporting evidence.
Halo_Override

You can't fool me, Pretend Conservative — you're clearly implying that the core of this issue is that Conservatives can't read complicated material as well as the other parties. So cruel.

McC_

time to make a contribution to: http://tinyurl.com/62kyfvy

Halo_Override

"Mr Speaker, I've determined that only one thing will truly reveal the sinister conspiracy against our respected government by the opposition coalition, the media, and Elections Canada — orange-mocha frappuccinooooos!!!"

wilson

Why didn't Elections Canada investigate the Sponsorship evidence that Gomery pointed to?

lgarvin

Apparently the offences identified in the Gomery hearings were too old be prosecuted under the legislation in place at the time. I am trusting my memory here, but I'm under the impression that the head of EC at the time (Kingsley?) was pressing to have the legisilation changed as a result.

I can look for some details if you are curious.

brooster2

So, chet, now you've implicated EC, the opposition parties, and the media in this huge conspiracy. All we need now is the grassy knoll.

Oh yeah, and the mafia.

Reverend_Blair

oooo…can I mow the grassy knoll. I just bought new spindles for the mower deck of my tractor…

brooster2

Hey, Rev, I've got no problem with that. In might be in your best interests, however, to clear that with the alleged conspirators. If you hurry, you might be able to find one of them in that book depository right over there.

brooster2

Speaking for myself, I miss Olaf. He was wonderfully (I suspect even willfully) annoying and entertaining.
Mike T.

plus john g. and myl.

Thwim

myl is specifically not a conservative supporter. Of the parties, their ideals lean closest to his, true but he's made it quite clear he's pretty disgusted with them.

john g. you may be right about. I haven't seen him about a lot lately, so I missed him as well.

Mike T.

Sometimes, but at others he takes unrealistic positions which tend to unjustifiably absolve the CPC of wrongdoings.

Crit_Reasoning

Kc, there are still a lot of good con supporters here, just as there are still a lot of good supporters of other parties, as well as good nonpartisans.

However, the intellectual quality of most discussions has really gone downhill. These days the SNR ("sh*t-to-noise ratio") is through the roof, which is a major reason why some of the brightest commenters like Sean, Gaunilon, Phil, Sea_and_the_mountains, Olaf, and many others have moved on.

It's Gresham's Law of comment boards: the bad commenters drive out the good.

TimesArrow

No idea why your comment is in the negative.

Have they all moved on elsewhere or just gone for good, more or less? That would be a pity. I'd hate to see macleans go seriously down hill. I note there are some new commenters who contribute much.
Sigh… i stiill miss Jack- and the really annoying part is the principles who helped to drive him off hardly bother with this place anymore. We wont even get into the fact it seems to have caused the macleans guys to pretty well stop interacting with us – a real loss. There's no doubt this place used to be a lot more fun for everyone.[ i am looking at you macleans journos]

TimesArrow

Least trusted according to whom? Oh right, according to those lying scurrilous attack ads that sheep likeyou take for gospel. Ever heard of manufactured consensus Wilson?

Loraine Lamontagne

Loosers? Every MP who sits in the House has won his or her seat. They're all winners.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Well, people are reading the papers and listening to the news, and the Tories have never been higher in the polls.

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

Everything Changes.

The only poll that counts… is the one after the bad news hits the fan.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

You guys say this every time, and nothing ever happens.

MostlyCivil

Tell that to Kim Campbell…

alfanerd

Shocking! It's one thing to be castigated by Elections Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal, but if the opposition parties are outraged, then clearly this is serious.

Presumably the opposition parties will also stop using the in/out scheme as well, or is this outrage strictly for when Conservatives use the scheme?
Anon in PQ

Do you have proof the the Liberals use the scheme. Never seen it happen, and unless you do, you're spewing Con lines…
tdotlib

Your continued repetition of the same meme is quite tiresome and in my mind is evidence of one of two scenarios:

1) You really don't understand that the problem is that the CPoC used the in-and-out method to exceed the FEDERAL CAMPAIGNspending limit by using space available on the LOCAL CAMPAIGN. These are two very distinct entities during an election. The accounting is standard and parties are allowed to transfer monies between the two as long as neither exceed their limits.

OR

2) You're a paid astroturfer working for a PR firm on the CPoC payroll.

So which is it?
psiclone

If the oppostion parties had any integrity whatsoever the motion would have been one of ' CONFIDENCE ' otherwise more noise from the frustrated harper haters signifying nothing. The level of hypocrisy piles up further and further because next confidence motion determines whether Harper gets to sit in the PM's chair – so folks what is it going to be more talk about evil meanie stevie OR more hypocrisy – I wonder what it will be?
Lucky Luke

I'd suggest both…but more likely option 1.
alfanerd

you dont have to read my posts libtard.

1) that is incorrect. you do not grasp the issue at all. keep reading.

2) yes, I am paid by the word and I get double if I get a stupid reply from a libtard. Thanks for helping me round out the month.

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.

NDP Email. OOPS.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/…
Mike T.

Said it before and will say it again"

Sometimes it seems like Harper is Paul Bernardo and the Liberals are the cops who could have done a better job of catching Bernardo. While you can definitely criticize the conduct of one, let's not forget where the real problem is!
AT1

Yes, Harper is EXACTLY like a serial rapist murder! Goodness, why didn't I see the similarities before!

Geez Mike, what were you smoking before you pressed the submit button?
chet

There is evidence all over the web the opposition used similar schemes.

The difference being EC and the media seem wholly incurious and disinterested.

On another thread we had a commenter linking to a CBC reporter suggesting Pollivier's skewering of this matter and pointing out evidence the NDP did it as being a red herring as purportedly those specific instances happened pre-writ.
Mike T.

Well, there's definitely illegal activity involved in both cases.

But now that you are the one drawing a personal comparison it kind of fits doesn't it? Harper's utter contempt for pariliamentary process is a bit like Bernardo's medically lack of human feeling. They even have kind of the same eyes, too…hey, I'm not saying he has dead girls at 24 Sussex, but it's a bit unnerving when you get right down to it.
lgarvin

I don't know if there is any truth to the rumour that Mike T. was created in a lab by the Conservative war room but it would certainly explain a lot.
TJCook

"libtard"

Stop that.
tdotlib

I'll take your reluctance to debate the substance of the issue as an indication that you really have nothing to add to this discussion. Last I checked, painting a group of people that hold similar beliefs with a term such as 'libtard' was more a reflection of the speaker's lack of intelligence rather than the target's.

But keep it up alfanerd, I'm sure your friends are getting a kick out of it.
Al O'Wishes

There is evidence all over the web the opposition used similar schemes.

Well then. If it's on the internet, it MUST be true.
tdotlib

This 'evidence' of which you speak has been weighed and measured and has been found wanting. I'm sure the Office of Public Prosecutions would be more than happy to see any evidence that you have and judge whether charges are warranted. If so, let's see it.

None of the parties have it easy when it comes to rebates from EC – this is a fact (which can be substantiated by EC if you look at filing dates and rebate dates).
Jan

Got anything but a dateless email, Allnerd?
Guest

But if Harpers contempt for Parliment & Democracy is as outragous as most here have stated, doesn't the opposition failing to vote "non cofidence" make them accomplices in our fall to a dictatorship?
lgarvin

…hey, I'm not saying he has dead girls at 24 Sussex, but…

When you find yourself writing something like this on the internet, call your doctor and your ISP in that order. Get a psych referral from the first and a cancellation order from the second.
Claudia Lemire

That is over the top, a terrible analogy Mike!

Plus ALL the parties have right now have no shame and respect for Parliament, ALL OF THEM! It's a circus!
ZestyMordant

It's just rude to refer to libertarians like that.
Loraine Lamontagne

As a mother of a daughter, now deceased, who suffered from profound mental retardation, I find it revolting that someone, anyone, would use mental retardation as a means to insult people. More than anything, it gives me a measure of the intelligence and inhumanity of the person who uses it.
ZestyMordant

"I feel it's a reasonable response…"

It's not. It's an offensive response, and damages the credibility of more realistic criticisms of Harper et al.
Mike T.

Fair enough, but let's not forget who the real bad guys are here.
SanDiegoDave

I'm not sure how to write this and sound sincere, Loraine, but thank you for sharing that information. Simple, eloquent, and sobering.
brooster2

well said
Mike T.

We shall have to disagree, then.
alfanerd

oh boy, i offended you didnt I. im so sorry. i forgot that now we were supposed to be concerned with 'civility' and all (except of course when it comes to conservatives).

i'll debate the substance with you any day. Read my post above with the NDP email. Then tell me what the conservatives did that is so wrong and illegal which is not explicitly admitted to in the NDP email.
Bob

Would you like some crackers with your koolaid?
Loraine Lamontagne

The difference, as I see it, is that the NPD transferred money to a riding so that they can buy ads while being aware that it would not have exceeded the ceiling. "Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think we have a problem" clearly implies that the NPD would see it as a problem if they were to exceed the limit.

Not so with the Conservatives who knew that they had reached the ceiling and yet pursued a scheme that they knew went against the Electoral law. They committed riding associations to immediately transfer the money back to the national party. This was done expressly to allow the party to exceed the limit.

You do not offend me by belittling persons with mental retardation. You belittle yourself.
brooster2

I don't think anyone denies that money flowed between national and local campaigns among all the parties. The difference is that the CPC allegedly used the transactions primarily for the purpose of laundering local money to finance their federal ad campaign.

In all your finger-pointing, you've yet to explain why Elections Canada charged only the CPC with such abuse of process. Until you can offer a credible explanation for that little "oddity", perhaps you should stop perseverating on the issue.
Reverend_Blair

From Marc Mayrand: "It has been said that transactions of this kind are usual and engaged in by all registered parties and their candidates. I did ask Elections Canada staff to review the returns of all the major registered parties and their candidates in both the 38th and 39th general elections. Elections Canada has not identified any other transaction or group of transactions in which all of the factors I mentioned earlier were at play."

I guess you lose, AN
Bob

Not only are the media and elections canada in on this conspiracy against the cpc, but the public prosecutions office, the RCMP, the commissioner which stephen harper appointed and the Vatican.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Why can't any of you respond to the facts he brought up? Instead, you act more childish than you say he's acting.

Are the allegations against the Conservative party that weak?
E_B_

Voting Non-Confidence in a government has to be tempered by the realization that the ultimate effect is likely a $300 Million election. For all the people that espouse the theory that voting non-confidence is such an obvious and simple choice, one supposes that they wouldn't mind having an election every six weeks or so.

So, given that there is no real appetite for multiple elections, the opposition can only keep hammering the points the want to get across, biding their time until they think all the cosmic forces are perfectly aligned to effect the desired outcome.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Yes, but at the same time, the opposition's actions have to match their rhetoric. If they're passing motions convicting the government of fraud, you'd think they'd actually do something about it, too. Otherwise, it's all B.S. accusations, right? Chantal Hebert makes the same point in her column today.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

You mean like this blog and the comments on it? Next.
MostlyCivil

"Are the allegations against the Conservative party that weak? "

Ssshh. You're derailing the "everybody does it" meme. Don't get in the way of the "Elections Canada Liberal Jihadists" talking point, either. You'll cost Alfanerd his Blue Sweatervest sticker.
Olivier

As far as I can tell the NDP email mentions the in and out but that's not the issue.

The issue is that the CPC used it to circumvent the limit imposed. I'm no expert bu the NDP email doesn't mention anything about going over the limit, if anything it says that they want to be sure that they do not exceed the spending limit.

So unless I misread something, again, alfanerd is, like when he brought up the federral court's ruling on the issue, completely out to lunch on what the charges against the CPC are.
brooster2

Why do you end many of your posts with that condescending, dismissive "Next"? Do you really believe your comments are such pithy punchlines or indisputable debate-enders that you can unilaterally invoke closure?
Al O'Wishes

Wait… you don't actually believe everything on the internet do you? Wow. I'm really sorry to hear that. I guess I'll have to be the one to break it to you:

- That Nigerian prince is not sending you money.
- Those pills will not enhance your manhood.
- There are not hundreds of local singles just waiting to talk to you.
- An opinion piece by a Conservative commentator is not "all sorts of evidence all over the web"
- Despite what the online test told you, you are probably not a genius.

You see, the internet is a lot like TV. Just because you see it happen on the magic box does not make it true. Some things ARE real. Other things are not. You'll have to figure out which is which for yourself… that means you may have to actually think for yourself instead of having the thoughts told to you by the CPC. I wish you luck, and not to worry… that burning sensation in your head is called "thought." Once you get used to it, it is quite pleasant.
TheHarperGov

We are not amused nor alarmed by the bleating of others' sheep.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be in the habit lately of responding to points not actually made by others. Interesting.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

If the Conservatives are using the "scheme" in the same way that the other parties are, then they wouldn't be over the limit, right? That's the whole point.
alfanerd

So unless I misread something, again, alfanerd is, like when he brought up the federral court's ruling on the issue, completely out to lunch on what the charges against the CPC are.

I was not out to lunch on the FC's ruling. But instead of lobbing false insinuations that Im 'out to lunch', why dont you explain to me why I was out to lunch, or is that too difficult for you?

Let me spell it out for you real slow now genius:

-Conservative party limit was almost reached
-In and out scheme used
-$ from in and out scheme applied to candidate's limit
-Elections Canada cries foul because it says $ from in and out scheme ought to be applied to party limit

Now from the NDP:
-In and out scheme used
-$ from in and out scheme applied to candidate's limit
-not a peep from elections canada

So why is $ from in/out scheme applied to candidate's limit for the NDP but its applied to national party limit when conservatives are doing it?
Crit_Reasoning

Thwim, I think Stewart was excluding me and Claudia from the "consistently, unabashed" category. Not that it really matters.

Generally speaking, I like Stewart, so I'm always disappointed when he writes stuff that makes him sound like a pompous twit, like his "Currently, you are the most coherent…" line.
wilson

That comes from only listening to yourselves.
TheHarperGov

We make rules. We make statements. We do not entertain discourse with the rabble.
Reverend_Blair

They aren't using it the same way as everybody else though. Elections Canada verified that.
alfanerd

You do not offend me by belittling persons with mental retardation. You belittle yourself.

Good. I dont mean to offend you, and I need some belittling (im huge). Besides, I dont belittle those with mental retardation, I belittle liberals. Im sure you will disagree with me on that, but Im ok with that. Apparently there was this big stink recently when a ben stiller movie used the term 'retard'. That's insane. Not to make light of the suffering of people with mental illness and their loved ones, but whatever term used to refer to the mentally retarded, that term becomes an insult overnight. You can change it over and over again, it doesnt matter.

You misread the NDP email and you misunderstand the issue with respect to conservative in/out scheme.

If an expense goes to the candidate's spending limit in one scenario (i.e., NDP in/out scheme), it should go to the candidate's spending limit in a similar scenario (i.e., Conservative in/out scheme). The conservatives have not gone over their limit UNLESS, the in out spending is attributed to the party. In every other case before the Conservatives 2006 campaign in/out spending was attributed to the candidate.
alfanerd

In all your finger-pointing, you've yet to explain why Elections Canada charged only the CPC with such abuse of process. Until you can offer a credible explanation for that little "oddity", perhaps you should stop perseverating on the issue.

That is precisely what Im trying to find out. This little "oddity" as you call it, can be explained away by bias from EC, unless you can show what the conservatives have done differently.
E_B_

…and they did do something about it. They passed a motion, calling on Mr. Harper to address a problem that, by majority decision, would seem to exist.

I don't mean to quibble, but where in the motion does it 'convict' the government of fraud? It says that the House, by majority decision, is of the opinion that a fraud has been committed, and that the government should acknowledge and rectify the situation.

Again, any non-confidence motion has to be tempered by the reality of the likely outcome: an election that costs $300 Million. I sure as heck want them to think twice, maybe thrice, before throwing us in to an election.

I kind of like the fact that that this motion passed and is not a non-confidence matter. It castigates the government, and draws people's attention to it; without inflicting an election on us. It is, finally perhaps, a real shot across the bow at this Conservative government.

How the government responds to this, may determine what happens next. I mean, you know, the government could in some Utopian world acknowledge that they have been playing fast and loose with some of our democratic principles; they could maybe reform and repent if they want to continue in government.
D.D.S

I think you are offensive
brooster2

Bias on the part of EC is rendered somewhat implausible as an explanation if, as I understand it, that agency's principle staff were CPC appointees. Harper isn't exactly renowned for appointing senior public service employees who are, in any way, independent thinkers (hello, Christiane Ouimet).
Olivier

No he doesn't because Elections Canada is biased!

The whole country is biased against the CPC. Everybody hates the CPC and there's only way to prove this is to act like jerk and pretend like what everybody says is wrong because, hey, they're biased and nothing anyone who isn't with the CPC says can be truem because, they're biased.
alfanerd

what are "all of the factors [Mayrand] mentioned earlier"?
Stewart_Smith

1) Correct, there are those who always stick to party lines, and I do count alfanerd among those, but not many of the other conservative leaning contributors.

2) I would have thought more arrogant than pompous, (although pompous does work better with twit). The Macleans forum benefits from a plurality of voices & views and is generally of a quality that is remarkably higher than comments to the Globe, Post etc. Still, frankly about 20% of the most frequent contributors are neither worth reading nor responding to. In particular, they often cannot maintain an internally consistent message within a given post, much less from one comment to the next. If that judgment reveals me to be pompous (or arrogant) I can certainly accept that.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Well it sure ended this one, didn't it? lol

I use it when I think people deserve it, especially when they make smartass cracks that don't hold up to scrutiny.

Next.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I don't mean to quibble, but where in the motion does it 'convict' the government of fraud? It says that the House, by majority decision, is of the opinion that a fraud has been committed, and that the government should acknowledge and rectify the situation.

They're specifically accusing the government of having committed a criminal act. If this isn't a reason to bring a government down, then what in the world is?

How can you have it both ways? How can you make such huge accusations, then turn around and sit on it?
psiclone

I agree – therefore the political cowardice displayed by the oppostion parties saves us 300 million and for that they should be applauded and so should harper for showing the hypocrisy of the talk big but carry no stick crowd. Harper has clearly ouitplayed, outfoxed and outmanouvered them again and this too is self evident for anyone who is not partisan.
alfanerd

fine, but then what is it that the conservatives did differently?

harper appointees or not, something stinks, and its not the in-out scheme.
alfanerd

that's fine with me.
alfanerd

what's the difference then?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

You obviously didn't get the joke. I'll explain it to you slowly if you need it.
Al O'Wishes

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the irony.

Next!
Al O'Wishes

But to be fair, the Vatican is still miffed over the whole wafer thing.
Mike T.

It's an analogy to a terrible subject, not a terrible analogy!
brooster2

What did the conservatives do differently? As I understand it they are alleged to have exceeded the limits for local/national transfers, as permitted by the legislation, by a considerable amount.

I assume EC deemed such transfers by other parties to be within the allowable limits. Anyway, that's my take on it.
Crit_Reasoning

If that judgment reveals me to be pompous (or arrogant) I can certainly accept that.

No worries, Stewart. I wasn't calling you pompous or arrogant, and I even took the trouble to say that I liked you.

I was merely opining that your "most coherent" comment sounded pompous. I stand by this judgment. You could have phrased your snark in a better way if you didn't want to elicit this kind of reaction.
MostlyCivil

It's my John Baird imitation. Annoying, ain't it?
Claudia Lemire

I do agree with that!
TJCook

I thought I recognized that sh*t-eating grin…
wilson

PLEASE bring down the Harper Government before the budget….
NDP and Bloc following Ignatieff over the cliff like Coalition lemmings is priceless.

Warren Kinsella:
"I don’t want us reduced to third party status.
I think going now, and going on the ethics theme, will lead to a majority Harper Government."

http://warrenkinsella.com/2011/03/to-campaign-or-…