Ottawa Bureaucrats vs. Conservatives

[August1991]

Elections Canada has laid charges against four Conservative Party officials – two of them senators – for allegedly breaking election law during the campaign for the 2006 ballot.

Globe & Mail

The Toronto/Anglo Montreal/Ottawa Bureaucratic Left has decided to turn this into a War: They hate Harper and the so-called "CRAP" Conservatives.

This is a fight to the finish: ordinary Canadians, English/French, will decide.

[scribblet]

Strange isn't it, considering that it is administrative problem and that they won the legal victory which EC appealed with no decision yet. IMO this proves that EC is not being neutral in this.

[Shakeyhands]

Strange isn't it, considering that it is administrative problem and that they won the legal victory which EC appealed with no decision yet. IMO this proves that EC is not being neutral in this.

If EC believes that something was not above board, why would you think they'd be neutral?

[Saipan]

What is the taxpayer $$ figure??

In simple words, how much of our money is missing??

So we can compare to Liberal waste.

[Keepitsimple]

.....and of course this comes on the eve of a budget and potential election. Coincidence?

[Molly]

Strange isn't it, considering that it is administrative problem and that they won the legal victory which EC appealed with no decision yet. IMO this proves that EC is not being neutral in this.

Good to see you've got your talking points all lined up. 'Administrative problem' indeed!

Who needs adscam kickbacks when you've got in-out?

No matter what the ultimate rulings are, it was smarmy and crooked-- all the moreso because while they were heisting money that the Conservatives weren't entitled to, they were accusing the other parties of being the pigs at the trough.

The 'sauce for the goose', though, makes me laugh. A party that gains such unbelieveable (unprofessional) largesse from the RCMP as the Conservatives did has little right to complain when EC wants to finish up the old-business challenge of their election-time activities before they repeat the misconduct! Justice delayed and all.

An 'adminstrative problem'! Ha! Somehow that kind of cheating and thievery sounds different from just regular kinds of cheating and thievery.

[capricorn]

Good to see you've got your talking points all lined up. 'Administrative problem' indeed!

Here's some insight worth noting.

Q. The Conservative Party is saying that the charges are "administrative" rather than "criminal". Isn't that just so much spin / dancing on the head of a pin?

A. No, it's not actually. To understand this, you need to be familiar with the provisions of the Elections Act regarding the financial administration of registered parties (Part 18 Division 3). The relevant sections are as follows:

UPDATE: adding s.422 and s.423:

* s.422 – sets out the method for calculation the national election expense limit

* s.423 – prohibits the incurring of election expenses beyond the limit (subsection (1)), and collusion with a third party for the purpose of circumventing the limits (subsection(2))

* s.429 – requirement to file an election campaign return, what its contents must be, and the six month deadline for filing it

* s.430 – requirement to have the return audited, and authority for auditor to gain access for that purpose

* s.431 – prohibitions against filing a return that is not complete, or that is known to be or ought to be known to be inaccurate or misleading. I believe this is the section the officials were probably charged under.

* s.432 – allows the Chief Electoral Officer to make a minor correction to the return, and/or to direct the registered party to make a correction to their return

* s.433 – allows the Chief Electoral Officer to authorize extensions and corrections of a registered party's return on request, so long as the CEO believes the corrections to have arisen through inadvertance or honest mistake, or due to the absence or death or mixup of an earlier chief agent

* s.434 – allows the chief agent of a registered party to obtain a court order relieving them of the obligation to file, or for an extension of the deadline

* s.435 – Provisions like those in this section were actually the crux of the Conservative Party's case before the Federal Court. It says that once the Chief Electoral Officer has received the election campaign return, he is to provide the Receiver General of Canada with a certificate setting out what 50% of the reported election expenses amounted to, in order that the election expense rebate could be paid to the registered party. The section says the CEO "shall" provide the certification, "if satisfied" that the registered party has complied with ss.429-434, and the auditor has not made any findings of incompleteness or unfair presentation of the facts. The reason for my emphasis on those two phrases will become clear below.

* s.497 – lays out the Offences under Part 18 of the Act, including those summary convictions that are "strict liability offences" (s.497(1)), those summary convictions that "require intent" (s.497(2)), and those "dual procedure" convictions that "require intent" (s.497(3)).

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/02/a-look-behind-the-in-and-out-charges-laid-this-week/

Who needs adscam kickbacks when you've got in-out?

From the same link:

Note that none of the provisions under s.497 is listed as an "Illegal Practice" or "Corrupt Practice" under s.502.

UPDATE: Nor are any of the provisions under ss.422-423, or ss. 429-425.

However, under s.507, a registered party whose chief agent is convicted of any offence under s.497(1), such as (q) or (q.01) [uPDATE: or any offence under s.497(3), such as (3)(g) or (3)(m)] is also itself guilty of an offence under summary conviction, and liable for a fine of up to $25,000, meaning that the Conservative Party itself could be in for some charges if those individuals are convicted. Bet they didn't mention that in their talking points.

UPDATE: Indeed the Conservative Party was charged, alongside the four individuals and the Conservative Fund, which is the chief agent for the Conservative Party, as headed up by Senator Gerstein.

It seems, then, that the Conservative Party's contention that the charges were "administrative" and not "criminal" is based on their being laid under s.500(5).a – the summary conviction section, rather than s.500(5).b – the conviction on indictment. They might also be referring to the fact that the charges relate to offences under the Elections Act, rather than the Criminal Code.

[scribblet]

I've got facts lined up, nothing more, the courts ruled in their favour so EC lost their case, sounds like they are simply thumbing their noses at the courts. It also looks too convenient coming after polls giving the CPC a majority. Something rotten here.