Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

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

The official explanation

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 1:49pm - 239 Comments

When chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand testified before the ethics committee three years ago, he explained his decision on the Conservative in-and-out transactions as the result of five factors.

There was no single deciding factor leading to my decision. In fact, rather, it was an aggregate of factors that precluded me from being satisfied that this expense was an election expense warranting a reimbursement. In addition to the statement by an official agent to which I have already referred, other statements were made by other official agents or candidates also disclosing a lack of detail and knowledge of the regional media buy expense.

The second factor was the absence of documentary evidence that would assist in establishing the existence of a contractual agreement by any of the participating candidates with the supplier retail media. The third factor was representations of party officials that all arrangements for the purchase were made by the party and that invoices were sent to the party. The fourth factor was particulars of the arrangements whereby invoices were provided to candidates by the party rather than by retail media as the supplier and the fact that moneys were transferred by Conservative Fund Canada, which maintained control of the money throughout the process by means of prearranged bank wire transfer instructions. Finally, the fifth factor was the important and unexplained discrepancies in the amounts charged to various candidates for the same advertising, so the expense claimed by each candidate did not reflect the commercial value—which we discussed before—of the ad placement.

Additionally, he dealt directly with the suggestion that other parties had done likewise.

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.

Bookmark and Share
  • Reverend_Blair

    "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."

    And so Pierre Polievre is caught in a lie.

    • Jan

      Ha – just heard a Conservative accuse the Bloc of 'in and outing' in the 2004 election. And the opposition is desperate?

      • Reverend_Blair

        Yeah, Pierre Polievre is using that kind of answer every time he stands up. I think the other parties should make a case that he's misleading Parliament, since what the Conservatives did was clearly different.

    • s_c_f

      You must be joking… are you serious? Mayrand created these arbitrary five factors, not Poilievre, and he created them after the fact (probably yesterday) for the sole purpose of making up an excuse to single out the Conservatives, and you are making judgements about Poilievre? Are you serious?

      • Not Stephen Colbert

        That's true, he made them up yesterday. Then he traveled nearly three years back in time to describe them to the House committee in order to cover his tracks. That devious bastard!

        • s_c_f

          The real Stephen Colbert would realize that the whole point is whether these 5 rules were concocted before the campaign, or whether the EC concocted them out of his head afterwards as a means to justify his selective application of the law.

          Suppose you have 5 cars on the highway, all of them traveling at 150 km/h, and a sixth at 110 km/h, and the speed limit is 100. A cop pulls over the sixth. He tells the driver "I didn't pull over those others because of this additional factor: your car is green and the others are not."

          • lgarvin

            I think for your analogy to work properly the speeds would be a little different. The five cars that got a pass were doing 110-120 km/h and the green car was doing Mach3. Mayrand was only alerted by the Sonic Boom.

          • madeyoulook

            You may laugh, but the law did place geographic boundaries on advertising. I found no text that placed more geographically restrictive boundaries on local advertising. I did find text that allowed a local candidate to promote his or her party.

            And I have now read enough of the Canada Elections Act to be ready for my friends' "intervention." But guys, back off until I get to read the court transcripts when they come out, ok?

          • Not Stephen Colbert

            I'm quite certain that the real Stephen Colbert, if he were unfortunate enough to find himself in my position, would also mock you for saying stupid things. He'd most likely be funnier than me, too. (But I'd suggest that I'm better value for money.)

            I hold out no hope of ever convincing you of anything, but in the hope that some other reader may benefit, I'll point out that these five factors are not "rules", but rather reasons for suspecting a rule might have been broken. In this case, the rule that the CEOC (who is not, one should note, "the EC") suspected might have been broken is that requiring that the election expenses submitted by a candidate have been legitimately incurred by the candidate. These five factors all tend to suggest (though certainly none of them alone prove) that the expenses were, in fact, incurred by the party, and not by the candidate. Without them, or some other factors that would lead to that conclusion, there's simply no reason to suspect that the expenses submitted by the other parties and their candidates were incurred by anyone other than as claimed.

          • s_c_f

            If these factors are used as justification for selectively applying the law, then they are "rules". Of course there is reason to suspect that the expenses submitted by the other parties and their candidates were incurred by anyone other than as claimed: the very reason is the existence of these rules! The 5 rules would not exist otherwise! He had to create them in order to exclude the other parties. There is no other reason for these rules.

      • TimesArrow

        You're the one who needs to get serious…yesterday? The information is three years old…talk about desparate!

        • NorthernPoV

          Contrast
          The Paul Martin "mad as hell" approach to adscam,
          to the Harperstan approach to in-and-out:
          This is a boring accounting dispute (official reaction)

          and then reflect on the irony of the recent opinion polls vs 2005 polls.

          Lesson: In the face of overwhelming evidence of scandal, calm lying works to make sure those swing voters are not paying attention.

          Heck, they don't even need the con-troll version on this board:
          We bein' picked on by da nasty Liberal bureaucrats

          (a compliant media helps)

          • tedbetts

            - 4 criminal charges on some of the most senior Conservatives

            - Court of Appeal decisions ruling against 67 candidates' claiming entitlement to taxpayer money

            - 3 contempt of Parliament rulings in one single year

            - Still no compliance by the Conservatives with Miliken's ruling on detainee documents

            - Re-branding OUR government as "The Harper Government"

            - Using ministerial taxpayer funded resources and money to fundraise for the party

            - Giving out government awards and cheques with Conservative logos

            I suspect the public is going to start paying attention. Especially now that it seems an election is inevitable.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Ted, Ted, Ted… are you still characterizing regulatory charges as "criminal" charges? I thought we resolved this last time.

          • tedbetts

            CR, CR, CR… are you still thinking that criminal charges (which these clearly and obviously are) and regulatory charges (which these clearly and obviously are) are mutually exclusive? I thought we resolved this last time.

            Charges brought by Prosecutor not administrator + seeking a conviction not a ruling + conviction could result in jail time (that's really the big giveaway right there) + goes on your criminal record (another big giveaway) + need a pardon to erase it = criminal charge.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            regulatory charges (which these clearly and obviously are)

            If it's so clear and obvious, how come you claimed they were NOT regulatory charges a few days ago, before admitting your error?

            Lots of regulatory charges have a theoretical risk of jail time, yet for some reason nobody ever refers to them as "criminal charges".

            There is a distinction to be made between regulatory and criminal charges. I bet you $10 that most lawyers wouldn't consider it appropriate to refer to regulatory charges as "criminal charges", as though they were no different from criminal indictments.

            You claim that a conviction will result in a criminal record. Are you saying that if this results in a $250 fine and no jail time, it will appear on their criminal record? Also, in the extremely unlikely event that these regulatory charges result in a few weeks of jail time, how do you know that it will go on the criminal record? Can you point to an example of a federal regulatory charge that did?

          • Holly Stick

            I consider allegedly stealing my tax money to pay for Conservative election ads to be one hell of a crime. I want those guys in jail.

          • Reverend_Blair

            And their criminal organization delisted as a political party.

          • Mike T.

            Lots of regulatory charges have a theoretical risk of jail time, yet for some reason nobody ever refers to them as "criminal charges".

            ***

            This is not true in the least. When there's jail and a criminal standard of proof and process being used, Criminal is used all the time.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I'm going to call your bluff, Mike. Show me ONE EXAMPLE of a federal regulatory charge being referred to as a "criminal charge" (besides this one, of course).

            That's all. Just one example to support your "all the time" claim.

          • tedbetts

            You admitted yourself CR that a securities fraud charge, a tax evasion charge, a charge for dumping toxic waste into public waters would all be considered criminal charges.

            You are wrong. That's ok. Let it go.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Show me an example of a federal regulatory charge resulting in jail time, without a criminal indictment.

            You're wrong, and you know better.

          • tedbetts

            You are kidding, right? You don't think that anyone has gone to jail over a securities offence, a tax offence, an environmental offence, etc. etc.

            I'm not going to waste my time with this nonsense. You even conceded that these types of regulatory offences are criminal. So let it go.

            You know you are wrong, and YOU know better, CR.

            Let it go. You'll feel much better.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            You don't think that anyone has gone to jail over a securities offence, a tax offence, an environmental offence, etc. etc.

            How many times have I asked you to provide an example of someone who went to jail under federal regulatory charges that were not accompanied by a criminal indictment? So far, you haven't been able to produce a single one.

            You even conceded that these types of regulatory offences are criminal.

            I did no such thing. I said that it is decidedly NOT acceptable or common practice to refer to stand-alone regulatory charges as "criminal charges". Yet you persist in torquing dictionary definitions so that you can refer to "criminal" charges in your partisan smear-jobs.

          • Thwim

            Hint: Lack of enforcement != lack of criminality.

          • Keith in Brampton

            Sigh. QUASI-CRIMINAL. Look up the term. Happy now?

          • tedbetts

            (My original comment seems to have disappeared, repeating)

            You aren't seriously suggesting that no one has ever gone to jail for tax fraud, environmental dumping, drug offences, securities fraud, etc. are you CR.

            This is patently ridiculous. Your claims are getting more and more bizarre on this point.

            I'm not going to waste my time tracking down links, pasting, etc. to prove an obvious. Something you yourself conceded the other day, that all sorts of regulatory offences are considered criminal offences.

            So let it go, CR. You are wrong, but it's ok.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I'm not going to waste my time tracking down links, pasting, etc. to prove an obvious.

            Rubbish. I asked for ONE EXAMPLE of someone who went to jail solely based on federal regulatory charges, without criminal indictments. Your repeated failure to provide a single example proves the weakness of your case.

          • Holly Stick

            We can always hope these guys set a precedent. Throw away the key.

          • Reverend_Blair

            and delist their criminal organization as a political party.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Why do you post the exact same comment multiple times in the same thread?

          • Reverend_Blair

            Just following the example of the Conservative posters here.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I'm not sure that's true. If you're not charged with breaking a law found in the criminal code the charges aren't technically criminal charges.

            That said, one can break ALL SORTS of laws, and go to jail for breaking those laws without ever actually running afoul of the criminal code, so it's really just a matter of semantics.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Really? Just semantics? LKO, can you show me an example of a Canadian going to jail based on a federal regulatory charge?

            Ted is engaged in an elaborate pretense that it's common practice to refer to regulatory charges as "criminal" charges. He's wrong, and it's not just a matter of semantics or torquing dictionary definitions.

          • tedbetts

            Stop making stuff up about what I am trying to say.

            Regulatory charges can be criminal and non-criminal.

            There is no bright line test. There is no science here, CR. There is no master definition in some statute that tells us this is criminal and this is not.

            There is however every single dictionary and legal dictionary in the world. But of course you know better, I guess. Jeesh.

            There is the fact that convictions are being saught not rulings, a Crown Prosecutor brought the charges not an EC administrator, there is jail time at stake, etc.

            Let go, CR. You are wrong. It's ok.

          • Holly Stick

            "…The federal charges carry a maximum penalty of $300,000 or six months in jail or both. The Alberta charges carry a maximum penalty of $500,000…" Syncrude. Ducks.
            http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/Ottaw…

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Your reliance on dictionary definitions (as opposed to common practice) means that literally any offense–no matter how trivial–can, according to the dictionary definition you prefer, described as "criminal". So your dictionary definition is useless.

            You seem to think that conviction/prosecutor/theoretical jail time is the line in the sand for which something can be fairly described as "criminal".

            This contradicts your previous assertion that the application of the word "criminal" is entirely subjective. Are you now setting forth rules by which charges can properly be described as criminal?

          • Reverend_Blair

            In common practice we call those who break the law criminals. We don't distinguish between types of laws. Get arrested, get convicted, pay a fine, go to jail, get a record and you are a criminal.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            We don't distinguish between types of laws.

            Right. That's why we consider people with speeding tickets, etc. to be "criminals". We don't distinguish, according to you, who has apparently thought about this for all of five seconds.

            Get arrested, get convicted, pay a fine, go to jail, get a record and you are a criminal.

            Right. First, they haven't been arrested. Second, they haven't been convicted. Third, they haven't been fined. There is a possibility that they will have to pay a fine of up to $2,000, depending on what happens in the courts. Fourth, jail is highly unlikely. Ted Betts can't even find a single example of anyone who has gone to prison because of federal regulatory charges. Fifth, the "criminal record" thing is a total fabrication by Betts. He can't even come up with a single example to support it.

          • Reverend_Blair

            Yes, speeding is a crime. Look it up. Extreme or habitual speeding can lead to a suspension of a driver's license (same kind of penalty as drunk driving) and even jail time.

            These men…and I use the term loosely…have been charged with breaking the law. They could face jail time. They could be fined. Will they get criminal records? I certainly hope so.

          • tedbetts

            Oh, for the love of…

            You really are going nuts on this aren't you CR. Your knickers are in such a tight knot, they are clearly cutting off circulation. I'm trying to help you understand, my friend, but you refuse to. I guess when you think you know better than every single English dictionary and every single legal dictionary, I guess there is no helping you.

            But I'm worried about you CR. You clearly watch too much Law and Order, I think. Because you keep using words and terms of which you clearly don't know the meaning. Law and Order is not only fiction and makes stuff up about procedure, but it's not even Canadian.

            I'm worried about you so I'll try one last time. But that is it. So here goes. Part I:

          • tedbetts

            Part II of CR's education on criminal law:
            2. You are really not understanding indictable and summary offences. Summary offences are crimes. No one but you would argue that they aren't. There are I don't know how many summary offences right in the Criminal Code. There are two sets of crimes, one more serious than the other because they pose bigger threats to citizens, and one less serious. Which kind of crime you are dictates the maximum type of punishment and the rigour of the criminal process. People go to jail all the time on summary offences. Which is sorta kinda why it is defined as jail time not to exceed 6 months!!

            Here's an excerpt from a summary on Canadian "criminal" procedures: "All offences in Canada may be classified as indictable (the more serious) or summary conviction (the less serious). Some offences may, at the discretion of the Crown, be prosecuted either by indictment or by summary conviction. The trial of summary conviction offences is either before a magistrate or a justice of the peace, and generally they carry a maximum punishment of $2000 or 6 months in prison. Summary conviction proceedings generally have a limitation period of 6 months from the date of the offence."

            3. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada was established to seek convictions. You only get convictions with a decision of guilty or not guilty in criminal charges. Here is what the PPSC says of itself: "The PPSC fulfills the responsibilities of the Attorney General of Canada in the discharge of his criminal law mandate by prosecuting criminal offences under federal jurisdiction and by contributing to strengthening the criminal justice system."

          • tedbetts

            Part III of CR's introduction to the real world of criminal law
            4. If this was merely regulatory, i.e. not criminal, then the enter case would be investigated, charged, and ruled on by the regulatory body. An appeal of a regulatory "ruling" (not a conviction) would go to a superior court under administrative laws and rules, not criminal laws/procedures/rules. The court would not look at the substance of the matter but only whether the regulatory body had exceeded its jurisdiction or not followed due procedure. I wrote a textbook on this stuff CR. That is not what is happening here.

            5. As for providing an example of someone who has gone to jail on a summary offence instead of an indictable offence, as noted above and elsewhere, that is just plain silly talk. I am not a criminal lawyer and, frankly, I wouldn't know where to look online if it is even published anywhere. Obviously people go to jail on summary offences. Possession of marijuana was a summary offence until Dear Leader made it an indictable one. Are you seriously claiming people aren't in jail now because of dope????

          • tedbetts

            Part IV (final) on bring light to darkness in CR's world:

            6. You seem to be under the impression that lawyers talk about what is a "crime" and what is merely a regulatory offence. They/we don't. That matters to journalists and partisans. Technically there is only such things as offences and different types of offences. The only thing that matters in reality in a law is whether an illegal act was committed and which procedures apply. Some offences, like these ones, go through criminal trial procedures; others don't.

            That's it CR. I'm done on this topic. The important thing and bottom line is that the Conservations committed a serious illegal act and are facing jail time. I don't care if you call it a criminal charge or not even though it very definitely is.

            I am not responding to any more of your increasingly desperate avoidances and distractions.

          • tedbetts

            I bet $10,000,000,000,000 that every lawyer would think of certain regulatory charges as criminal.

            The definition is a term of art, not something set out in a statute, but in a dictionary.

            If you defraud your shareholders, you are going to be charged with what is technically a regulatory offence, but would anyone doubt that it is a criminal charge? In fact, that is what gets repeated all the time. Same for tax evasion. Same for environmental. Same if you stuffed the ballot box.

            You are trying to distract from the real issue here. The Conservatives are charged with serious illegal misconduct.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Sorry Ted, but I don't have ten trillion dollars to bet, and I suspect you don't either. However, I do appreciate that you wagered so many extra zeroes, because it's characteristic of the gross hyperbole that infuses most of your partisan rhetoric.

            If you "defraud" your shareholders, and you are charged for it, you will probably be criminally indicted. If you stuffed the ballot box, you would be criminally indicted. Do you disagree? If so, can you point to examples of fraud or ballot-box-stuffing that resulted in regulatory charges but not criminal indictments?

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Of course, regardless, we used to hold governments and politicians to a higher standard. It used to be that being charged with breaking the law was bad enough, criminal or no. Governments and politicians used to fall for simply being "unethical", we didn't require them to actually break a law before punishing them, Hell, we used to be shocked at the notion that they'd take something so far as to actually break the law.

            The Tories broke the law in an attempt to circumvent election spending limits. Given that, whether or not doing that was a "crime" seems KILOMETERS beside the point.

          • Thwim

            Crit's not arguing the charges at all though. He's arguing the label. He's well aware that if the "criminal" label starts to stick to the CPC, they're done, regardless of what actually happened. So he'll go to pretty much any lengths to fight it being applied.

            My suggestion? Ignore him. Apply it anyway. The actions, and possible penalties, mean that in the common vernacular the action is criminal, regardless of the technical details he'd hope to distract us with.

            This is the game folks, and if we want Harper out, we unfortunately need to start playing it as well as they do. They will use technicalities to try to distract us from the pragmatics that the everyday public pays attention to, and because we try to be fair and honest, we let them twist us with them. Then wonder why the public never pays attention when we're alway qualifying our own words so heavily.

            Stop playing the role they're giving us.

            They've acted in a manner most people would consider criminal. Call'em that. Make it stick. If their arguments really bother you, remember the response of "Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.. I'm calling it a duck"

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            It's ironic, but particularly for the Liberals I think the problem is that they decided it was best to stop acting like Chretien at exactly the same moment that the Tories realized it was time to start acting like Chretien!

          • Reverend_Blair

            Do you think that diving for loopholes and arguing semantics like mob lawyers is really helping the Conservative case?

          • Thwim

            It is, because we start self-modifying our own statements to prevent people like him from arguing semantics.

            Problem is, every-day folks don't bother reading the back-and-forth to see who comes out at the end, they read the top-line. And if we're already weakening our case on the top line in order to make it accurate, how on earth will it compete with theirs, when they hold no shame in presenting their case in the best possible light, regardless of accuracy?

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            If you aren't charged with breaking a statute found in the criminal code, the charges against you aren't technically criminal charges.

            That said, a party could totally illegally steal an election without ever breaking a statute found in the criminal code (say, by breaking every single provision of the Elections Act) so it's really just a matter of semantics that you're arguing about.

          • tedbetts

            Incorrect.

            Look, there is no such thing as "technically criminal charge". The terms crime and criminal are clearly defined in the dictionary, not in any statute. Here is a legal dictionary definition: "crime (krm) n. 1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime. 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources." Here are more that all define "crime" the same way.

            And think about it. Is securities fraud or tax evasion a "crime" in your mind? How about dumping toxic waste in Lake Ontario? Nothing about those in the Criminal Code. So, no, it does not have to be in the Criminal Code to be a crime.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            If you aren't charged with breaking a statute found in the criminal code, the charges against you aren't technically criminal charges

            Ted disagrees with you. His argument is that it makes no difference whether it's in the Criminal Code. He's arguing that any summary and/or regulatory offence under any statute can be fairly referred to as "criminal". In other words, he's suggesting that any regulatory charge is also a criminal charge, if there's a theoretical risk of jail time.

            If a party "stole" an election by breaking every single provision of the Elections Act they would face criminal charges, not just a single regulatory charge.

          • tedbetts

            "He's arguing that any summary and/or regulatory offence under any statute can be fairly referred to as "criminal". "

            Please don't fabricate arguments I have not made, CR.

            In fact, I have explicitly said a regulatory charge could be a criminal charge or not. It depends on what the charge is, suprise surprise.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            It depends on what the charge is

            Please elaborate. How does it depend on what the charge is? Prosecutor vs. regulator? Conviction vs. ruling? Jail time vs. fine? Please spell out precisely how a regulatory charge can be fairly referred to as "criminal" depending on what the charge is.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            What's impressive about Ted's list though is that even if you throw his first bullet point out because it's slightly exaggerated, it's still a pretty depressing list!

            And the words "prorogation" and "deficit" don't even appear anywhere.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Most of his list is exaggerated. I just don't have time to take it down point by point. Maybe later, if I'm not too busy at work.

          • Not Stephen Colbert

            In 2003, Raymond Landry. Commissioner of Canada Elections, had this to say:

            "The enforcement scheme under the Act is multi-pronged, ranging from the application of administrative incentives, to the initiation of criminal prosecution."

            And also this:

            "An acknowledgement of responsibility in a compliance agreement, unlike a guilty plea in a court of justice, does not result in a criminal record."
            http://www.elections.ca/res/eim/article_search/ar…

          • Reverend_Blair

            There has been no compliance agreement though. I suppose they might bargain it down to that if found guilty, but so far the Conservatives have refused to agree to anything.

            Since charges have been laid, wouldn't that up the ante to, "the initiation of criminal prosecution?"

          • Not Stephen Colbert

            Since charges have been laid, wouldn't that up the ante to, "the initiation of criminal prosecution?"

            That is what I was getting at, yes.

          • brooster2

            OK, boys and girls, let's at least get the Chief Electoral Officer's name right – it's Mayrand (not Maynard).

          • Leo

            The timeline is wrong on this as the "five factors" would not apply if the rules were not changed until after the election.

            “Interpretation guidelines contained in Elections Canada Candidate Handbooks dating back to 1988 are consistent over time on the issue of candidate advertising, until a sudden drastic change in 2007 (i.e., after the 2006 Election). Until this drastic change, the guidelines were clear that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate specifically and/or national party.

            Sample of Liberal candidate "in-and-out" http://mrdconservative.com/cgi/wp/?p=197

          • tedbetts

            No sudden change. That's a lie.

            The rules have not changed. You can't claim taxpayer money for expenses you did not incur. You can't spend on a national campaign over a set amount. Period.

            The only thing that Elections Canada has clarified since 2006 is that not only was it illegal to do that in 2006, it was still illegal to do it in 2008. Read their "interpretation". All it does it repeat verbatim the law.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            This is a favorite Tory talking point on this file. Pretend that the issue is some subjective interpretation of whether the content of an ad is sufficiently "local" in nature, or excessively "national" in scope, and simply ignore the fact that, as far as I know, no one's ever even examined the content of the ads in this light, and it's not something that Elections Canada has ever complained about.

          • Leo

            The Bloc were the ones that invented "La Methode In & Out" for the 2000 election. It did not become known until the court case against former Bloc MP, Jean-Paul Marchand in 2003. The Liberals started to implement changes to the election law to 'close the loophole', but the changes were not made before they lost the 2006 election.

            Thus, the changes occurred after the 2006 election and were in effect for the 2008 election.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Even if the Bloc's case was identical to the Tories' case (which I don't believe it was), someone else getting away with breaking the law before you broke the law is not a defence for you breaking the law.

          • Dave

            The BQ's méthode in-and-out did not involve transfers between the central party coffers and the local campaigns.

            Their gaming of the rules (was it in 2000? I forget.) involved "paying employees" on their campaign, who then "donated" that payment right back. The employee-donor got the personal tax deduction, the campaign got a larger Elections Canada rebate.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            "Until this drastic change, the guidelines were clear that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate specifically and/or national party".

            Sure, but this isn't about the content of the ads, and the notion that it is is a Tory red herring.

            What makes the ads national and not local isn't the content of the ads, it's the fact that some of the local people charged on paper for the ads didn't know until after the election that they'd been charged on paper for the ads (and in at least one case understood that they were contributing spending towards a NATIONAL ad campaign); the fact that the Tories made candidates accept wire transfers designed such that the national party never relinquished control of the funds to the locals, EVER, they just placed the money in the local accounts and took it back out again with no intervention from the locals (which is good, since some of the locals didn't know it was happening); the fact that the invoices were assigned to the candidates based not on the commercial value of the service they were supposedly buying, but on how much spending room they had left under the cap, and neither the locals themselves nor the media company they were supposedly buying the ads from ever saw the invoices (despite the invoices being made to look like they came from the company and were sent to the local candidates); and the fact that in at least one case spending by a Quebec candidate was deemed "local" even though the ads the spending paid for only ever aired in Ontario.

            There are at least a half dozen ways in which this can be shown to have not been local spending that can be determined without ever seeing the ads, and I didn't even have to mention the fact that a handful of Tory candidates refused to participate in the scheme on the basis that they understood that there was simply no way that it could possibly be legal.

        • s_c_f

          For such old info, why is Aaron posting it now? I guess you're saying Wherry is desperate for material.

          • Reverend_Blair

            To show the inanity of the Conservative talking points.

      • former_ADB

        Mayrand was speaking 3 years ago before committee, at least that is what is says at the top of the post.
        So he did not invent these 5 factors yesterday.

      • Halo_Override

        Time travel: it was part of the reality of the department at the time.

        • Keith in Brampton

          LOL!

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        In a addition to the fact that this testimony was given three years ago, as others have pointed out, I'd also mention that the examples Poilievre used were, it turns out, transfers between parties and candidates that happened OUTSIDE OF THE ELECTION PERIOD, which is a pretty big difference, so he was clearly trying to dissemble by comparing apples to oranges.

        • Keith in Brampton

          A Con dissemble? I'm shocked! ;-)

        • s_c_f

          Are you serious?

          Heck, if you were smart, you'd realize that the whole point is whether the rules were concocted before the campaign.

          It's completely irrelevant whether they were concocted yesterday or three years ago. Completely and totally irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they were concocted before the 2006 election campaign.

          • Reverend_Blair

            Yes, SCF, doctoring invoices, laundering money and exceeding spending limits were already against the rules before the Conservatives committed their crimes.

          • s_c_f

            Thanks (not) for answering a question nobody asked nor disputed.

          • BCer in Mtl

            So you are basically arguiing the 'rules' did not exist at the time they were supposedly violated.

            It would be interesting to hear your views on other non-existent items, such as 1000's of e-mails complaining about the Long-form census, a competition held by Canada for a CF18 replacement, statistics on unreported crimes, anti-Semitic activities by Kairos and malfeasance on the part of Remy Beauregard at Rights & Democracy.

          • Halo_Override

            Now now, we don't want to see five more Parliamentary contempt rulings. What will the neighbors say?

          • s_c_f

            Of course these 5 rules did not exist. If they did, provide proof. Anything.

        • Dave

          That's more like comparing apples to flux capacitors.

    • Dave

      You can catch Pierre Poilievre out in a lie pretty easily. The dead giveaway is when he rises in the House of Commons and starts talking.

  • peter

    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 am curious if mens re applies here; A brand new party, staffed with many new people, no doubt following legal direction on financial policy given by experienced lawyers. I would be very curious to see how many of the individuals at EC who didn't "identify" other offenders of the arbitrary complex guidlines ennumerated by Mr. Mayrand questioned his arbitrary definitions needed to paint the Conservatives black, as it were. That a five-factor dissection of the rules was required seems to reinforce the notion that the rules were too open to interpretation, with guilt assigned simply by signing documents, post facto deemed "illegal"..

    • s_c_f

      I agree, I would be very curious to know the same.

    • Mike T.

      I thinkyour reading it in the reverse manner it should be taken. Those aren't five factors EC randomly decided had to be in play before they would prosecute the CPC, those are five interlocking factors all pointing at the party breaking the law.

    • Jan

      The Media company didn't think the Cons were following the rules. They wanted them to get a ruling on it – the Cons wouldn't here of it. Obviously they wouldn't co-operate in producing appropriate invoices, and so the Cons did their little faux invoice gambit.

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      A brand new party? The melding of the PC and the Alliance has erased the collective mind of their members and followers? Because of the melding they, pouf, like by magic, have no knowledge of the Loi électorale?

      New people? How new? Three-months old?

      I, for one, am pleased that a person like Mayrand takes "important and unexplained discrepancies in the amounts charged to various candidates for the same advertising, so the expense claimed by each candidate did not reflect the commercial value" seriously.

  • Mike T.

    So the new CPC talking point is that the more unique factors existed which led EC to believe the party was breaking the law, the more the CPC are being singled out for unfair prosecution.

    In fact, the more evidence of guilt, they more they are innocent!

    • Jan

      Soon they'll be claiming election financing laws are unconstitutional.

    • tedbetts

      How Orwellian.

  • Reverend_Blair

    Wow, the Conservatives seem to be contorting themselves in ever tighter positions over this. Careful boys, you might pull a muscle.

  • tedbetts

    Harper appointed Maynard had 5 "smell test" points. Here's the nuts that I just keep coming back to that make the whole thing stink:
    - invoices were falsified and submitted so candidates could get reimbursements

    - national ads were "tagged" as being approved by the local candidate's returning officer, but in at least 4 known cases, that returning officer was never given the chance to see or approve

    - many candidates refused to participate because they knew it was illegal

    - candidates contributed based on their available spending room, not market prices

    - candidates' campaigns had to pre-authorize the payment back to the party

    Those are real, objective, proven facts affirmed (in most cases) by the Court of Appeal.

    The Conservatives conspired to spend over the limit and defaud voters. Canadidates tried to claim taxpayer entitlements for spending that they did not incur.

    This is very simple. And very obvious.

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      As I read, and reread this, the "- candidates contributed based on their available spending room, not market prices" really nails it.

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    Le président de la Chambre force Ottawa à divulguer le coût de ses politiques
    http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canad…

    Great victory for all Canadians.

    • Reverend_Blair

      Er…is there an English translation for those of us who were taught French by a unilingual teacher with a British accent?

      • Loraine Lamontagne

        Late, but nevertheless the Globe now headlines the news.

      • Jan

        Have you got Translate on your tool bar? Anywya, it's about the Speakers's ruling. Two strikes against the government.

        • Holly Stick

          Select text, right-click and see if you have Live Search Translate. Here's the beginning:
          "…(Ottawa) The Harper Government is served a new reprimand by the speaker of the House of Commons, Peter Milliken, Wednesday afternoon a.m. Milliken held that Ottawa's refusal to provide the detail of certain costs related to its policies was "prima facie" violation of parliamentary privileges. These privileges include the right of Parliament to demand the Government give information they deem necessary for their work…"

          • Reverend_Blair

            Thanks. I have no idea whether I have translate on the big 'puter or not. Nothing on this MacBook though…at least that I can find.

          • Holly Stick

            Google has a translate function if you check the menu (at least on a PC).

          • Paul

            Facts seem irrelevant to those attacking the Conservatives, but let's try one more time.

            The Chief Electoral Officer for Canada (CEOC) did NOT find these transactions to be illegal in any way, shape, or form. In fact, many of these transactions were accepted by Elections Canada, and only a few are in dispute.

            What the CEOC complained about was the fact that the invoice drawn up by the Party to various individual campaigns did not itemize the commercial value charged or justify why different amounts were charged to different campaigns within the same region.

            There may be any number of reasons why a different amount might be charged to different campaigns – different coverage for the ad, different emphasis on different ridings (thus different actual value to the candidates). I don't pretend to know what factors led to the amounts billed, but the fact that different amounts being billed in different regions was perfectly acceptable to the CEOC (and to the Federal Court (FC)) indicates that there is nothing inherently wrong with different amounts being billed.

            Again, the only complaint in the FC finding raised by the CEOC was that different amounts were billed to campaigns within the same region, and that the invoice was "generalized" (i.e. one "master" invoice was used by the Party, with different lines indicating the amount billed to individual campaigns). This has led the Opposition to suggest that the invoice was somehow "doctored" – an absolutely ridiculous charge without any foundation in fact.

            The fact that the Conservative Party paid for the advertising, and the fact that the advertising was properly an expense of the local campaigns, is not disputed by the CEOC. The only question is how much it was worth. And the CEOC and the FC have already established that the valuation is somewhat arbitrary between regions.

        • Jenn_

          Yes, but have you got anything to translate that? "The President of the Communes gives two blames to the Harper Government."

          At least it got the name of the country's government right.

          (I do know what it refers to)

    • TimesArrow

      Well this should confirn whether we are going to the polls or not. Although the libs say the speaker wont allow a NC motion on his ruling…i wonder why not? Guess it's got to go to committee first…one day before the budget. Hold on to you seats we're in for a ride…wheeeee!!!

  • tedbetts

    Please.

    They had already been through an entire election together. Gerstein was already a senator. Toews had already tried this, got caught and convicted for it in Manitoba. Finley was no rookie.

    This has got to be about the worst and weakest excuse yet for this criminal activity.

    • Dave

      Wasn't Gerstein only appointed as part of Harper's New Years Honours in 2009?

  • Mike T.

    They're allowed to ask Elections Canada if a practice is acceptable. Remember, even the original judge whose ruling the CPC liked said it was a pretty slimey practice, legality aside.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      If I'm not mistaken they actually DID ask Elections Canada beforehand if the practice was acceptable, EC told them "No" and they basically said "We disagree, so we're doing it anyway".

      • Not Stephen Colbert

        Do you have a source for that? I would very much be interested in seeing it, if you do.

      • Jenn_

        That came up in some committee, didn't it, when the original in-and-out story broke? Perhaps on a Kady blog?

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    What's starting to worry me now is that even if the Supreme Court of Canada itself eventually rules that the Tories broke the law, a bunch of people around here are going to go to their graves believing this was all just a big conspiracy between the Harper-appointed Chief Electoral Officer and the Harper-appointed Office of Public Prosecutions to stick it to the government that appointed them.

    The fact that Polievre is up there in the House trying to justify this by referencing transfers between other national parties and their local offices that DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN DURING ELECTIONS shows how desperate the Tories are becoming.

    • Mike T.

      Their hope is that you can fool 38% of the people most of thei time.

      • Keith in Brampton

        That might excuse some of the 67 candidates (and which may be why only four heading the scheme are charged), but not the national members who crafted the scheme in the first place.

        • peter

          But does it excuse an institution of the Canadian people, tasked with only ONE job that they have been doing for decades to leave a gaping hole in what should be a fairly straightforward process? Anyone with any experience in court or in a regulatory environment would understand that the system has failed here, not the political party. The Federal court is hog tied by case law that my or may not fit the facts and an institutional bias to the infallibility of the "institutions" of governance. As they say in sports, "the best defence is a good offence". Do you see the opposition trying to address the systemic failures of EC that led to the current problems? Heads should be rolling at EC for failure to do the only thing they are tasked with. To post facto try and criminalize "sharp practice" must be putting the fear of god into half the senior lawyers in the country.

          • Keith in Brampton

            "The Federal court is hog tied by case law that my or may not fit the facts…" No; if the case law doesn't fit the facts, they will distinguish it – i.e. they will SAY the facts don't match and refuse to apply it.

            As to the "gaping hole" – apparently, the EC and the DPP feel that hole exists only in the minds of the CPC members who cooked up this scheme. I strongly suspect the court will agree.

      • Dave

        They would have reason for such optimism, although I have a sneaky sense that things are starting to shift underneath them now.

    • Reverend_Blair

      Unfortunately the speaker didn't want to hear about Polievre misleading the House today.

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        Well, the poor man is awfully busy lately.

        I'm curious to find out how many other governments in Canadian history have been found in contempt of Parliament more than twice in a single year.

        • madeyoulook

          Jumping the gun, LKO, Such a finding has yet to happen once. The Speaker can declare a prima facie case, and he has now done so three times (and that may well be a record). But neither this government nor any MP has been found in contempt, yet.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            True, and a good correction. That said, I don't think THAT's happened three times in a single year to a government either.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada felt that this was illegal. He then passed on all the information he had to the Commissioner of Canada Elections to do an investigation. The Commissioner of Canada Elections ALSO felt that this was illegal, and handed over the findings of his investigation to the Office of Public Prosecutions. The head of the Office of Public Prosecutions ALSO felt that this was illegal, that furthermore there was "voluminous" evidence of its illegality, and recommended that four people be charged with breaking the law.

    That last office was created and appointed under the Tories, and the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada was ALSO appointed under the Tories. Is there no one in the country who ISN'T in on this conspiracy???

    • tedbetts

      The PMO.

      • Holly Stick

        Sure they're in on it, they just lost the file among all the other conspiracies they are involved with.

  • Jan

    Amazing how many of the inexperienced smelled a rat, isn't it? You will note that the ones being charged are the organizers.

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    What, and you think Senator Finley, who was in charge, was born yesterday? The guy who is to stand accused in this? He's been around long enough to know what was going on. He certainly knew what was going on when he fled down the stairs when the Conservative Party headquarters was raided. Give me a break.

  • s_c_f

    LOL OK, I'm sure you've arrived at that figure with great evidence, and of course this poll is not an issue for you: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.a…

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Sorry, I was imprecise there. I actually meant 40% in an election is the highest they can ever hope for (and, to add more precision, by "ever" keep in mind that the "they" I'm referring to is the current Harper Tories… I'm not saying that the CPC will never get over 40% in an election from now until the end of the world, I just don't think this gang can do it).

      That said, that poll is only the third or fourth time they've gotten over 40 in a poll, isn't it?

      • s_c_f

        I think their ceiling is 45%, because there was a moment in time when they had a couple of polls in a row at 45% (this was when the coalition threatened to replace the government). So this shows that under the right circumstances, 45% of voters would choose them.

        I'd say their floor is 29%, because that's the lowest they've polled over the same time period. I think there is 29% who would never vote for one of the alternatives.

  • tedbetts

    This is exactly the kind of scam that got Vic Toews convicted in Manitoba.

    And Maynard was a Harper appointee, as are all of the Public Prosecutors Office which eventually brought the criminal charges against the Conservatives.

    This gets uglier and less defensible the more you dig down to the details.

    No wonder the Court of Appeal threw out the lower court decision and agreed with Elections Canada and no wonder the independent Public Prosecutions Office said there was "voluminous" evidence of "illegal" conduct by the Conservatives.

    Or maybe the whole world is just biased against the Conservatives.

  • Jan

    Poilievre is making an *ss out of himself over this. Now reading out random in and out transfers of opposition parties. Why he would he want to appear so stupid, is beyond me.

  • former_ADB

    Yes, "Reality has a well known liberal bias".

  • s_c_f

    Hey, let's identify as many factors as required about the current situation to ensure that we can claim it is not similar to past situations. Let's make these factors up out of the blue with no reference to current law. Let's use these factors as a justification to prosecute the current offenders while ignoring past offenders.

    There's another name for this: selective application of the law based on personal bias.

    Here's an analogy: suppose you had a bunch of shoplifting cases, but you really want to prosecute just one and let the others go free (you happen to like the others). Then you say you identified several factors of particular significance according to your own judegement:
    -goods related to automobile expenses
    -the time of day is early
    -the offenders were all male
    -the offenders had no accomplice

    Presto! You've got your justification to prosecute the single male shoplifting the car wax early in the morning! Who cares about the gang that heisted the loot from the jewelry store?

    -

  • bergkamp

    "Elections Canada has not identified any other transaction or group of transactions in which all of the factors I mentioned earlier were at play."

    Had similar thoughts as you when I read last sentence.

    Sounds like Maynard is saying that everyone is gaming the system but only Cons are in trouble because invoices were received from party, not retail media, and that's just not cricket.

  • tedbetts

    Harper appointed someone who is biased against Harper? Harper created a whole new prosecutors office that is biased against Harper?

    Does that really sound like something Stephen Harper would do?

    This is an illegal scam and you know it. No amount of spinning will get them off of this.

    Poillievre is up there basically saying: giving a woman on the street some money is legal; having sex with a woman is legal. Therefore, by charging us for trying to have a good ol' in and out with a prostitute and by not charging everyone who has ever given some money to a woman or has ever had sex, you are showing your bias!

    So sorry if facts have such a built-in anti-Conservative bias.

  • Mike T.

    You forgot to add "stupid and unrelated" before your use of the term analogy.

  • Thwim

    You really don't understand the difference between aggregate and selective, do you?

  • tedbetts

    I'd say it is more that facts and reality have an anti-conservative bias than they have a liberal bias.

  • Al O'Wishes

    Does that really sound like something Stephen Harper would do?

    Of course it does! Everyone knows that Stephen Harper has a Liberal bias.

  • s_c_f

    You do realize the charges relate to the 2006 election, which was the election that elected Harper for the first time? So how on earth does anything you say make any sense? Harper did not appoint anyone before he was elected!

    As for Poilievre, It seems you have no idea what he said.

  • leroy

    I agree. But they will make a difference to public perception.

  • former_ADB

    I'm sorry for not properly identifying the source. I was only quoting Stephen Colbert, who was satirizing (in front of GW Bush, no less) the American Right's complaints about bias in the media.

    Obviously (or perhaps not) reality and 'facts' have no political bias, liberal or conservative. But it is of course very difficult to determine what is real.

  • former_ADB

    Yes, this is about the 2006 election but if I understand correctly it is the present EC and the new prosecutor's office that are pursuing these files.

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    Well you do realize that the charges came after the 2006 election, don't you? The Conservative Party was raided in the spring of 2008, two years after the election, don't you remember? That Mayrand and Corbett were named by Harper is a matter of public record.

  • Not Stephen Colbert

    Just in case anyone interested in facts is reading:

    The current government appointed Mayrand, who made the comments that Wherry posted and that s_c_f is up in arms about. The current government also created Public Prosecution Services of Canada, which ultimately made the decision to lay charges.

  • brooster2

    s_c_f, your protests seem to be increasingly desperate. There does come a point where cognitive dissonance is no longer tenable and you may need to construct a new paradigm…one that is more consistent with, you know, facts.

  • Mike T.

    He's not saying that.

  • Keith in Brampton

    If that's how it sounds to you, you may want to check your ears for a wax build-up.

  • madeyoulook

    Thanks for digging this up, Aaron. This five-factor smell test no doubt arose from clearly worded text about these five criteria in the legislation itself, right? And if not, surely there was an interpretation bulletin published in the Canada Gazette well in advance of the campaign, right? And if not, well, maybe it was a table of criteria in the chapter on expense reimbursement in EC's Guide for Parties and Candidates? And if not, maybe a letter ("OK everyone, here's how we're gonna do it this time…") from the chief electoral officer went out to the party presidents and every candidate's official agent?

    Surely at least one of those information dissemination mechanisms took place in advance of the campaign. It's awful nice of EC to keep a "level playing field" so everyone knows in advance how EC's operations will be run. I am relieved to hear they didn't come along after the fact.

  • Mike T.

    How about "do these factors taken together point to election fraud?"

  • peter

    myl, it sounds like you are referencing Christy Clark's BC Rail obfuscations here (whose hubby was Paul Martin's BC campaign organizer). If so, few outside of BC will get your point! If not sorry.

  • John D

    I'd like to vote for a party that doesn't need an interpretation, a table of criteria, and a letter to keep it from stealing taxpayers' money.

  • TimesArrow

    There was no single deciding factor leading to my decision. In fact, rather, it was an aggregate of factors that precluded me from being satisfied that this expense was an election expense warranting a reimbursement"

    It's clear from even a cursory reading the factors he mentions were supplied by the miscreants, which ,to me at any rate, clearly implies there were a set of rules or guidelines that the party ought to have understood.

    No matter, our inhouse champion of hair splitting rides to the rescue yet again.

  • Thwim

    Yeah, because the CPC is incapable of asking EC.. when even their own candidates are telling them, "This looks fishy guys."

    Seriously?

  • s_c_f

    Yes, exactly, I'd like to see the official source of these criteria. Surely they were determined before the campaign started. Let's see the source of these 5 magic rules.

  • John D

    Dirty Liberals. Even when they's Conservatives, they's still Liberals.

  • s_c_f

    That's all true. But it's hard to believe that the investigation was started by Mayrand a full year after the election. It was started by his predecessor. Regardless, the fact that Harper appointed the man doesn't mean he's in Harper's pocket, obviously.

  • madeyoulook

    Great! Let's find a party that will ABOLISH this ridiculous taxpayer-bled system of expense reimbursement, for all the parties.

  • Jan

    You get your Strict Libertarian Party up and running, get at least a minority that can be supported by the other parties long enough to change the rules and have at 'er.

  • NorthernPoV

    OK – but
    1) Admit the guilt this time.
    2) Maintain and strictly enforce the same spending caps – and any pre-writ ad-spending must be included in the caps. (Regarding the in-and-out crimes, exceeding the spending cap is just as bad as stealing the rebates.)
    3) phase it in over 8 years (two elections) to allow for adjustment time

  • tedbetts

    And until then, let's get rid of the party in government the develops and elaborate scheme to try to scam and steal that taxpayer money.

  • Mike T.

    Who are you to tell the mad libertarian to run his party, you authoritarian libtard!!!!!!!

  • Reverend_Blair

    Yeah, you understand correctly. It's not that hard to grasp, of course.

  • s_c_f

    Yes. Please explain that to tedbetts.

  • Reverend_Blair

    <Puts on redneck hat and Harper campaign button>

    "Uh, aggregate is what you make concrete with?"

  • Reverend_Blair

    And he got whipped like a cheap hound because he was wrong.

  • Jan

    I think they only know see-ment.

  • Guest

    Wow??

  • s_c_f

    Have you ever considered campaigning for the Liberals? Please do.

  • john g

    Great idea. Who do you suggest we replace them with?

  • s_c_f

    It wasn't taxpayer money. You're thinking of the Liberals. They're the ones that stole taxpayer money. This whole boring "scandal" is about the Conservatives stealing money from themselves.

  • Holly Stick

    Wouldn't work. They would each vote for themselves only.

  • Holly Stick

    And he's out for revenge.

  • Reverend_Blair

    Like a spurned toddler plotting against his babysitter.

  • s_c_f

    What do you mean desperate? Do you think I care one way or the other about this in-and-out stuff? Do you think Canadians in general care? The most important factor is that the Conservatives were spending their own money, money that was donated to them by Canadians voluntarily, and this whole issue is about various technicalities over the rules about whether they're allowed to spend their own money or whether they're forced to leave it sitting in the bank. The vast majority of Canadians understand that.

    This is actually boosting the Conservatives. It's leading the Liberals to believe they should trigger an election at the moment when Conservative support is peaking.

  • s_c_f

    By the way, you reveal your lack of smarts when you use the catch-all meaningless term "paradigm" that's all the rage for those who love to spout vague and pointless mumbo-jumbo.

  • brooster2

    Oh, I'm sorry, I inferred you cared from your repeated (and increasingly lame) attempts to explain away the Cons behaviour.

    Now you've decided none of it matters either to you or to "Canadians in general". Oh, and it's the party's own money, anyway. Oh, and it's all just a bunch of technicalities.

    If all that's true, I assume you'll now give up your feeble defense of Cons' conduct.

  • TimesArrow

    I sense we are approaching a point at which fireproof Steve is no longer fireproof. Now the difficult part – convincing the voting public to see it that way too.

  • Keith in Brampton

    And the fact that (1) they spent more than they were allowed nationally and (2) tried to then not just disguise it as local expenditures, but tried to fraudulently (IMO, and I suspect soon in the eyes of the court) get the taxpayers to reimburse them for 60% of it is, in your eyes, in no way relevant?

  • Reverend_Blair

    Peaking? You mean like peaking on acid, S_C_F? Must be a bad trip for Harper and his boys.

    Don't even try to say that it was just Conservative money either. They tried to get their grubby little hands on over $700K worth of taxpayer money and are currently refusing to repay over $100K.

  • s_c_f

    Do you ever say anything useful or even slightly interesting?

  • brooster2

    Paradigm is a perfectly legitimate word and, IMO, completely appropriate in this context. In addition to providing hapless arguments in defense of the Cons, you're now the self-appointed arbiter of English language usage.

    I believe you're way out of your depth.

  • Keith in Brampton

    Does it really matter who started the investigation? Read Maynard's statements again; he followed up on all parties and only the CPC twisted therules into pretzels. Further, Corbett then reexamined the evidence presented, carried the investigation forward, and 20 months later laid charges. As Conservative appointees, I'm betting they made very sure of the evidence before (a) proceeding against the CPC and (b) NOT proceeding against other parties.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    They were reimbursed for the spending by taxpayers. If the spending was illegal, then the reimbursements were ill-gotten taxpayers money.

    That said, I'm actually reasonably confident that if the CPC ultimately loses in court (which I think they will) that they will return the money (even if for some weird technical legal reason they wouldn't be forced to by the courts you understand, I think they'd give it back because it's the right thing to do).

  • tedbetts

    Nope.

    They already took $100,000 based on this scam before Elections Canada clued into it.

    They tried to take another $800,000 of taxpayer dollars but were denied.

    That's $1.8 million in illegal spending over the limit and they tried to make us taxpayers pay about $1 million so they could do it.

    Do keep up, scf.

  • madeyoulook

    It IS taxpayer money, scf. Joe Taxpayer foots 60% of eligible campaign expenses, foots insanely generous income tax credits to those who make political contributions directly, and STILL is forced to cough up almost a twonie a year for every vote each party gets.

  • s_c_f

    Of course it doesn't matter who started it. So tell that to tedbetts, not me. What are you telling me this for? I'm not the one that implied that the fact that Harper appointed him had some bearing on the whole thing.

  • s_c_f

    Sure it's a legitimate word. So is "thing". Here's your writing:

    You should make a new thing.

    Yes, that's what you wrote. So highly accurate and descriptive. Such brilliance. Poetry almost. The only difference is that you think it sounds better to use "paradigm" instead of "thing" and "construct" instead of "make".

  • s_c_f

    I'm not talking about the Cons. I'm talking about what Mayrand said.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Is it really "magical" to claim that one can't call something "local spending on a regional media buy" if some of the local people supposedly doing the spending didn't know they were involved in contributing to a regional media buy, and that no one can provide any documentary evidence that they actually did so?

    The Conservatives are free to say "that was local spending". However, some of the locals had no idea it was happening, there are no documents to support the claim that it was local spending, the national party never even relinquished control of the funds FOR A MOMENT to the local campaigns, a local campaign in Quebec has been shown to have paid for a "regional media buy" for ads that only ran in the GTA, and all of the spending was divided among candidates not based on the commercial value of the service they were supposedly buying, but based on how much room they had left under the cap (such that in at least one case this one supposed "regional media buy" accounted for 40% of the campaign's expenses) these aren't "magical" facts, their "facts that put the lie to the Tories' ridiculous claim that this was "local spending".

  • Keith in Brampton

    Yeah; there's that. But at this point I can't think of anyone who could be worse (well, maybe save the Communist Party of Canada).

    Maybe we should all vote Green and see what happens.

  • madeyoulook

    And, as fishy as all that sounds, it's STILL only illegal if the law says it is.

    OF COURSE it's fishy, sneaky, too clever by half, whatever. I presume a couple of lawyer types read the laws and the rules and devised a way to drive through some loopholes. All we're left with now is for a judge to decide whether they were clever enough to not be illegal. But I submit the chief electoral officer had better do better than an after-the-fact invention of his own "five tests" rule in his own mind that no participant could possibly have read beforehand.

  • madeyoulook

    Only the candidate, the agent for the candidate (and maybe someone designated by them?) can conduct transactions on the candidate's campaign account. I am interested in the assertion that these people were unaware of the nature of the money they were handling. If that's true, then how did the money move in and out?

  • madeyoulook

    I am less troubled "legally" than you are about how each local campaign reached its amount (based on how much room was left under the cap). Can you help us all by contributing for some shared advertising? Great! How much are you willing to pay? There's the "price" to be invoiced and paid. That it also became the precise amount the party felt like transferring to the local campaign account makes it sneaky (oh but commenters here will do a far better job coming up with an adjective), but not ncessarily illegal.

  • madeyoulook

    The distant geography of broadcast was sloppy, and makes it difficult to defend philosophically. But legally is another standard entirely. I would like to think that nothing is illegal unless Parliament has passed a law saying it's illegal. If the law says thou shalt pay only for advertising on media that broadcasts over public airwaves within (or within 50km of a boundary of) your riding, then yeah, throw the book at them for disobeying the law. If the law was vague, and they got cheeky because they read the vague law and figured something out, well, shame on the law.

    (What I think of limiting freedoms in the first place, I will leave to that other thread.)

  • brooster2

    I apologize for using too big of words for you. I'll remember to seriously dumb it down in future comments addressed …sorry, sent… to you. It's just that I haven't engaged in such banal exchanges since about grade three.

    Now go practice some bigger words on your Speak n' Spell.

  • Thwim

    Rhino.

  • Thwim

    Really? You're suggesting that Harper's appointee decided, after the fact, to change the rules to specifically attack the conservative party and none other? In order that he might.. uh… be reviled by people like you?

    Wow. That makes a lot of sense. No really.

  • brooster2

    I think a judge (or court) will make the initial determination as to whether the "5 points" constitute sufficient grounds for conviction. Until then, does anybody know whether there is any body of case law on offenses like this?

    Someone mentioned that Vic Toews got burned for similar transactions in Manitoba? Is that a precedent? If not, this may be the case that establishes whether the much-debated "5 points" are good enough to convict.

    Who knows, the Supreme Court may even grant leave to appeal and will have the final word on the case.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    If the Supreme Court of Canada rules that they broke the law, will you at least THEN be convinced that they broke the law.

  • Not Stephen Colbert

    The five factors aren't meant to be a rule of law. They're a way of looking at the evidence to help determine if a law has been broken. Perhaps it would be helpful to think of it via an over-the-top analogy: there's no law against being covered in blood, or against holding a knife, or against being in the vicinity of someone who's been stabbed. But if you saw someone who fit all three of those factors, you'd probably be somewhat suspicious that they may have broken a law. That's not "inventing rules"; it's just, well, thinking.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    I submit the chief electoral officer had better do better than an after-the-fact invention of his own "five tests" rule in his own mind that no participant could possibly have read beforehand.

    And I submit that as the charges have been brought by the Office of Public Prosecutions, after an investigation by the Commissioner of Canada Elections that the Chief Electoral Officer is two steps removed from the decision to prosecute this illegality. I also submit that as the Harper created and appointed Office of Public Prosecutions has concluded that there is "voluminous" evidence that the law was broken, that either an experienced public prosecutor who was appointed by the Harper government has already determined that the CEO's five tests were appropriate, or that an experienced public prosecutor has determined that the law was broken regardless of what tests the CEO applied when denying the refunds.

  • Reverend_Blair

    I don't think they'll return the money until we hold them upside down by the ankles and shake it out of their pockets.

  • madeyoulook

    Wasn't it some sort of GST-related interpretation that had the CPC insisting on paying up, over EC's objections?

  • Holly Stick

    And accidently bump their heads on the floor a few times. Not recommending that, just daydreaming…

  • Reverend_Blair

    Wow. Not a lot of scruples out there in Libertarian Land, are there?

  • madeyoulook

    Thwim, I am asking the location from whence his "five tests" were pulled, and the timing. If all he's got is "The law is silent, but I don't like the looks of this," then, well, the law is silent.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Really? You're suggesting that Harper's appointee decided, after the fact, to change the rules to specifically attack the conservative party and none other?

    I think it's worse than that. I think he's also suggesting that the Commissioner of Canada Elections went along with the CEO's anti-Tory conspiracy, and then the head of the Office of Public Prosecutions doubled down on behalf of the both of them.

  • madeyoulook

    clearly implies there were a set of rules or guidelines that the party ought to have understood.

    Link?

  • Thwim

    But the problem is, the law isn't silent. It says there's a limit to what can be spent by the party, and by the local campaigns. That's the law. It further says that Elections Canada has the authority to allow or disallow expenses that exceed the limit.

    Where a party mixes these things up, then it is up to Elections Canada to make the appropriate determination, and as with most of our laws, such determination eventually depend on what a "reasonable person" would find allowable.

    So what you seem to be suggesting is that since what "a reasonable person" would allow isn't strictly defined in the letter of the law, there was no breaking of the law. Again, I point back to my other example. If I sell you a chair, but deliver a banana saying that "Oh, I call that a chair", you'd rightly feel defrauded, and a court would agree with you, because no reasonable person would look at the thing and go, "Sure, I can see that being a chair."

    Here in this case, we're dealing with a CPC which had *multiple* people going, "Hey, this isn't reasonable.." at the time… and that was their own candidates.

    For the CPC to then proceed without seeking further clarification from EC suggests that they were not behaving in a reasonable manner. They were, in essence, hoping to pass off the banana. They slipped up.

  • madeyoulook

    The courts are not there to apply scruples, Blair. The courts are there to apply THE LAW. Which is all they can do. My scruples are heavily weighted towards individual freedoms. Yours, well, I still remember our conversation last night, and let's just say your scruples at times demonstrate some hostility towards individual freedoms. Scruples vary, as they should. The law must not.

    Getting all red in the face because a political party got sneaky does not render their conduct any more or less legal. I hope there remain some judges out there who get this.

  • madeyoulook

    Who knows, the Supreme Court may even grant leave to appeal…

    Yup. Given the stubborn nature of both litigants, I suspect the SCOC will at least get petitioned eventually.

  • s_c_f

    So you have conceded my point. Thank you.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Well, I think his pants might be on fire at least.

  • s_c_f

    As Conservative support is peaking, you are claiming the PM is weakest? Wow. Bring on the election, let's go.
    http://www.visioncritical.com/public-opinion/6042…

  • madeyoulook

    I am already saying myself they might have broken the law. The bit about making up invoices to look like they came from a supplier that said "those aren't our invoices" is very troubling, if true. But that's not in-and-out. That's fraud.

    The bit about some candidates refusing to take part: doesn't sway me. It is reasonable to say "this looks bad" without concluding "this is illegal."

    And my main argument, that even I am starting to get sick of repeating: get rid of the stupid subsidy of campaign expenses already, and we can rid ourselves of this nonsense and get on with governing the friggin' country.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    I don't know the financial technicalities but the party explicitly made the wire transfers of a type such that the local officials could not touch the money, though I believe it's true that technically the local candidate or his or her agent was supposed to sign off on such a transaction occurring. The national party put it in, the national party took it out, and the candidates weren't able to touch it. In some cases I think the locals didn't understand what they were signing off on; in at least one case they explicitly believed they were signing off on making a contribution to a national ad buy (and later testified to that fact, which is what tipped off EC that something was fishy); and I'm pretty sure in at least one case neither the candidate nor the official agent recalls signing off at all, and the candidate didn't notice the transfer had even happened until doing some accounting post-election. And, of course, there were those handful of Tory candidates who refused to sign off at all because the whole scheme seemed to be OBVIOUSLY illegal, and even the CPC lawyers couldn't convince them that it could possibly be allowed under the law.

  • madeyoulook

    That's a very good point, to the extent the evidence hasn't been brought to the judge with us watching over the court's shoulder. But I sure hope they've got stronger evidence than that with which commenters around here seem prepared to rely on.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    So, you're saying that it's not enough for Parliament to establish a national spending limit and a separate local spending limit, they have to also explicitly explain that funds spent for advertising which only ever airs in Riding X can't be treated as "local spending" on behalf of the candidate in Riding Y? The word "local" doesn't cover that? If the money had been spent to buy ads in RUSSIA, would you be comfortable in us establishing that THAT doesn't meet the criteria of "local spending", or do you need Parliament to put in writing "Money spent to buy ads which only air in Moscow can't be treated as 'local spending' on behalf of a candidate in Quebec".

    Is the word "local" really that nuanced and complicated?

  • madeyoulook

    It is easy now to cite the refusenik CPC candidates as evidence that reasonable people see the scheme as OBVIOUSLY illegal. Key word: now.

    It is also possible that some of these politicians didn't like how this would look POLITICALLY, even if it was legal.

  • madeyoulook

    436. The official agent of a candidate is responsible for administering the candidate’s financial transactions for his or her electoral campaign and for reporting on those transactions in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

    438.(4) No person or entity, other than the official agent of a candidate, shall PAY expenses in relation to the candidate’s electoral campaign except for petty expenses referred to in section 411 and the candidate’s personal expenses.

    438.(5) No person or entity, other than a candidate, his or her official agent or a person authorized under paragraph 446(c) to enter into contracts, shall INCUR expenses in relation to the candidate’s electoral campaign.

    (bolding and all-caps MYL's)

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    I think commenters like you and me are hampered by our admitted lack of legal expertise. The fact that I can't sufficiently explain the mountain of evidence that the Office of Public Prosecutions claim they have showing illegal activity shouldn't be taken as an indication that the Office of Public Prosecutions is wrong.

  • madeyoulook

    The law DID think of Moscow, LKO:

    330. (1) No person shall, with intent to influence persons to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate at an election, use, aid, abet, counsel or procure the use of a broadcasting station outside Canada, during an election period, for the broadcasting of any matter having reference to an election.
    (2) During an election period, no person shall broadcast, outside Canada, election advertising with respect to an election.

    (bolding is MYL's)

  • alfanerd

    more specifically, the law says that an expense can be claimed by a candidate if these 3 conditions are met:


    (i) the expense must be incurred by the entity reporting the expense; (ii) the goods or services for which the expense is incurred must be used during the election period; and (iii) the goods or services for which the expense is incurred must be used “to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate”
    http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2010/2010fc43…
    (paragraph 120)

    the issue seems to be about point (i).

  • Thwim

    And when such doubt was raised, it would behoove a reasonable person to go to the source and ask.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Well, I believe some of them said at the time that they believed it was illegal… it's how the withstood the pressure from the centre to participate.

    That said, I'll grant you that it's possible that a bunch of former Tory candidates are also in on the vast Elections Canada conspiracy, but at this point, who ISN'T a part of the conspiracy? The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, the Office of Public Prosecutions, all the opposition parties (it goes without saying), the Federal Court of Appeal, a half dozen former Tory candidates and official agents…

    At this point I'm looking forward to the weeks ahead mostly to discover what MY role in this conspiracy against the guileless CPC was!

  • Thwim

    If that was your main argument, perhaps you should have made even passing reference to it in your initial post defending the CPC.

  • Dave

    And his Quebec caucus have been sure to get him some asbestos underpants.

  • Reverend_Blair

    Sorry, I don't think that breaking the spirit of the law is okay just because you find a loophole. According to many, many statements by Conservative (and Alliance and Reform) members over the years neither do they. Yet you attempt to defend them by saying that it's okay because…at least in your scenario which do not match what's been published about the case so far…there was a loophole.

    Your position is morally reprehensible and dangerous to democratic values

  • Keith in Brampton

    Some things aren't worth a serious comment. If you say something useful, I might in turn say something interesting.

  • Keith in Brampton

    Are they even still around? None have run in my riding (to my recollection) for years. Can't vote for them if they aren't on the ballot (Bramalea-Gore-Malton – hint! hint! And yes, that's a Lib riding; not impressed by our benchwarmer)

  • Reverend_Blair

    Well, here's hoping he the flap open on those particular long johns.

  • Holly Stick

    I went to see when they had faded out and found this about the original party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party_of_…

    But there is also a recently registered Rhino Party (at first called the neorhinos): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party

    And here's a suggestive list, with many mentions of beer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frivolous_po…

  • Thwim

    Gad. This is horrible. I find I'm reluctant to respond because I fear you're setting me up for some sort of semantic/legalistic trap so you can go "AHA! Here's how you're an idiot!" on some pedantic detail I've overlooked. That's prejudicial of me, and not fair to you, so I apologize for that. I beg the excuse of the state of these boards lately and the twisting it seems quite a few folks are doing on this issue to avoid the roots of it.

    At any rate, I think you're correct in that. ii and iii are obviously non-contestable.

    Mayrand is saying, "Look, I've got these five things, all of which point to the idea that they really didn't incur this expense themselves."

    And a lot of the responses are, "Well,everybody does it, and you didn't tell us about those five things ahead of time."

    Which, even if true, is no defense. It's rather like claiming that your boss didn't tell you he'd be checking your invoices, so you're not to blame if they're not in order. Doesn't fly.. but that seems to be what some folks around here are trying to throw.

  • alfanerd

    1. you're right in general to be weary, but not in this particular case.

    2. i dont disagree with you, and it's ok for mayrand to look at 5, 6, or 2, or whatever amount of factors he wants to consider.

  • madeyoulook

    Well, then, swallow this pill, Mister Moral Democrat:
    What is actually morally reprehensible is the limitation of the freedom to express oneself via whatever means available as often as one wishes.

    And, here's the spoonful of sugar to help the above medicine go down:
    Nothing is illegal that is not clearly defined as illegal in the law. At least, that's how it's supposed to be in a country blessed by respect for human rights and the rule of law.

  • TimesArrow

    i don't think you entirely understand what implies means in this instance. You might want to call it inductive reasoning.

  • s_c_f

    You're the king of ad-hominem.

  • s_c_f

    Apparently not.

From Macleans