The list of the 67 Tories

[Topaz]

Someone said they like to see the list of the 67 Tories in the in and out scheme and here it is. http://www.thestar.com/article/416855

[Shakeyhands]

That is a LOT of people. FAR more than was involved with the Sponsership thang...

[Shady]

LOL! That's quite the hit piece. A list of people allegedly receiving disputed funds.

So whether or not they receieved anything is in question. As is the funds being improper, which is disputed.

[Shakeyhands]

LOL! That's quite the hit piece. A list of people allegedly receiving disputed funds.

So whether or not they receieved anything is in question. As is the funds being improper, which is disputed.

Can't say they did or didn't until it's decided on right? I'm sure the Star will correct the wording soon.

[Mr.Canada]

Someone said they like to see the list of the 67 Tories in the in and out scheme and here it is. http://www.thestar.com/article/416855

That is a LOT of people. FAR more than was involved with the Sponsership thang...

Only one problem. They moved funds around sure but so does every party during an election. That's right every party does the exact same thing.

[SF/PF]

Only one problem. They moved funds around sure but so does every party during an election. That's right every party does the exact same thing.

Within the limits and rules set out. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should forward it to Elections Canada.

But then, if you had such evidence you would have already done that, and we all would have seen it on the news by now.

[Posc Student]

Cyntia Downey in Newfoundland and Labrador has spoken out against this saying that she wasn't aware of what was going on. She thought the money deposited in her account was for her to use and that because it was taken it caused her to lose the election.

[Shwa]

LOL! That's quite the hit piece. A list of people allegedly receiving disputed funds.

So whether or not they receieved anything is in question. As is the funds being improper, which is disputed.

Yeah, would you rather the headline read something else?

[Evening Star]

This seems to make it pretty clear that other parties have not been found to pull this particular stunt of transferring money to local campaigns and transferring it back out right away (and then collecting taxpayer-funded rebates): http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1829499694

[Keepitsimple]

Those Conservatives are such blatant crooks. Not only did these 67 people openly participate in this devious scheme - but they actually gave receipts to Elections Canada indicating what they were doing! They didn't even try to HIDE their scheme. Such nerve! That's not the worst part.....when Elections Canada clarified the rules, those clever Conservatives decided not to use that process in the last two elections. What dummies - committing fraud right out in the open and actually TELLING Elections Canada what they did! What arrogance!

Edited March 8, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

Actually, now that I think of it...The Star has done a good service to the Conservatives. By listing 67 MP's, Canadians can clearly see how "open" this "fraud" was.....and that with so many people involved in a process where there was no intent hide anything......everyone can see that indeed, it was just an interpretation of the rules.

Leading up to a possible/probable election, The Star is bringing out all the ammunition they can to attack the Conservatives. The dummies just don't understand that there is a point of diminishing returns - and if that line is crossed, credibility is lost and readers can see the overt agenda. This is exactly what happened with Rob Ford. The Star tried to repeatedly demonize him and their vitriole helped turn the tide. The bozos are still calling Ford a buffoon.

[waldo]

it was just an interpretation of the rules.

ya, ya... the Booster Club has the talking points down pat! "Just a rules interpretation"... "all other parties did it"! Well... NO... no other party did IT, where the IT is the duality at play; i.e., both the IN and the OUT. Yes, most certainly, all parties engaged in the "IN"... moving national monies to local candidates; however, the Harper Conservative regime stands alone in the "OUT" - transferring that money immediately OUT again... a shell game!!! A fraudulent shell game! The shame!

[Scotty]

That is a LOT of people. FAR more than was involved with the Sponsership thang...

The Sponsorship affair was a criminal matter involving the outright theft of government funds, and we still do'nt know how many were involved since, like the Mafia, the Liberals never were willing to talk about it. Most Canadians have little doubt that Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were involved. The cops just couldn't get any of their underlings to turn on them.

The in-out thing is not a criminal matter.

[waldo]

The in-out thing is not a criminal matter.

Tory ‘in-and-out’ scheme violated Elections Act: federal appeal court

The Tories have repeatedly called the charges against the four officials “administrative” and described them as a dispute over accounting methods.

But the charges, laid by the Commissioner of Canada Elections on the recommendations of the Director of Public Prosecutions, carry maximum penalties of fines and jail time.

[Scotty]

Tory ‘in-and-out’ scheme violated Elections Act: federal appeal court

It's interesting you don't understand what criminal acts are.

[Shakeyhands]

The Sponsorship affair was a criminal matter involving the outright theft of government funds, and we still do'nt know how many were involved since, like the Mafia, the Liberals never were willing to talk about it. Most Canadians have little doubt that Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were involved. The cops just couldn't get any of their underlings to turn on them.

The in-out thing is not a criminal matter.

except there were no MP's involved and certainly no PM. And if there was, we would have known about it seeing as though it was a conservative that led the commission.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Shakeyhands

[Scotty]

except there were no MP's involved and certainly no PM. And if there was, we would have known about it seeing as though it was a conservative that led the commission.

He was not a conservative,and that's irrelevant anyway. In a matter of influence, the only thing you'll have as evidence are either direct written statements (rarely) or testimony. Obviously any orders Chretien gave were filtered through loyal subordinates who refused to testify against him. But one can infer things, as in the fact that no matter what rules were broken, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Works could not seem to do anything about it because his cabinet minister was protecting the individual responsible. Further, when he went to the Clerk of the Privy Council to complain about his minister it became evident the PMO had no interest in reigning him in either. All this is a matter of record. You can't get away with egregious violations of the rules and regulations in government without protection from on high.

[Topaz]

Actually, now that I think of it...The Star has done a good service to the Conservatives. By listing 67 MP's, Canadians can clearly see how "open" this "fraud" was.....and that with so many people involved in a process where there was no intent hide anything......everyone can see that indeed, it was just an interpretation of the rules.

Leading up to a possible/probable election, The Star is bringing out all the ammunition they can to attack the Conservatives. The dummies just don't understand that there is a point of diminishing returns - and if that line is crossed, credibility is lost and readers can see the overt agenda. This is exactly what happened with Rob Ford. The Star tried to repeatedly demonize him and their vitriol helped turn the tide. The bozos are still calling Ford a buffoon.

You did notice the date...April of 2008. It wasn't easy finding this article and I only did it by remembering one of the names on the list. At the time this came out all the papers ran it.

[Shwa]

Actually, now that I think of it...The Star has done a good service to the Conservatives. By listing 67 MP's, Canadians can clearly see how "open" this "fraud" was.....and that with so many people involved in a process where there was no intent hide anything......everyone can see that indeed, it was just an interpretation of the rules.

Yes, I see what you mean. In a similar way, the Mafia has the same sort of interpretations too, so long as you don't look too closely. They are out in the open also, with many people involved.

Leading up to a possible/probable election, The Star is bringing out all the ammunition they can to attack the Conservatives. The dummies just don't understand that there is a point of diminishing returns - and if that line is crossed, credibility is lost and readers can see the overt agenda. This is exactly what happened with Rob Ford. The Star tried to repeatedly demonize him and their vitriole helped turn the tide. The bozos are still calling Ford a buffoon.

The Star tried to "demonize" Rob Ford? Surely they could not be accused of the same hyperbole you use to ascribe it to them.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Shwa

[Topaz]

The only thing that matters is the truth and for this Tory party to come in after running on openness and accountability after the adscam, and then steal from taxpayers, they don't belong in the House of Commons and I don't think they should recieve their pensions! What the Quebec Liberals did was wrong and all of the Liberal party paid for it, its time for the Tories to pay for their actions. Build those prisons and put all 67 in them!

[waldo]

The in-out thing is not a criminal matter.

Tory ‘in-and-out’ scheme violated Elections Act: federal appeal court

The Tories have repeatedly called the charges against the four officials “administrative” and described them as a dispute over accounting methods.

But the charges, laid by the Commissioner of Canada Elections on the recommendations of the Director of Public Prosecutions, carry maximum penalties of fines and jail time.

It's interesting you don't understand what criminal acts are.

read what you want... I simply wanted to parallel your acceptance of illegality over criminality. As I said, "rolling, rolling, rolling"! We can now add to the club's talking points:

- it's simply an administrative misunderstanding

- all parties did it (uhhh, no... only the Harper Conservative regime extended upon the full duality of IN and OUT)

- it was illegal, but not criminal!

("

the penalties involved range from a year in prison, a $2,000 fine, or both, or up to a $25,000 fine. Upon sentencing, provisions in the Elections Act also permit a judge to impose additional penalties, including deregistering the party or liquidating assets

") ... serious stuff!

[capricorn]

The in-out thing is not a criminal matter.

The Public Prosecutor's Office agrees with you on that score.

Dan Brien, spokesperson for the public prosecutor’s office, said a team reviewed all the evidence gathered by elections commissioner William Corbett and decided summary charges, rather than criminal indictments, were the way to proceed. “It’s a Crown decision,” said Brien.

http://www.therecord.com/news/canada/article/492882--elections-canada-charges-four-top-tories-in-election-spending-dispute

Yet, the opposition throws around words like "fraud", "theft" etc. Just now on Question Period Ignatieff lamented that MPs involved "face jail time". What a bunch of hooey.

Looking at the Public Prosecutor's website, the present action clearly falls under "Regulatory Prosecutions".

Regulatory Prosecutions

The PPSC prosecutes a wide range of offences that are aimed at protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public and the environment. They include offences under statutes such as the Fisheries Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Copyright Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Food and Drugs Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Regulatory prosecutions comprise the second-largest category of offences prosecuted by the PPSC, after drug prosecutions. In 2009–2010, the PPSC handled 9,620 files involving regulatory offences.

Outcomes in these cases may generate large fines and penalties, and can result in remedial and preventative measures that enhance public and environmental health, safety and security.

(my bolding)

http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/ar10-ra10/04.html#section2_4

No mention of fraud, no mention of possible jail time.

Either the opposition is unaware of the actual process or are willfully ignoring what they know, preferring to continue blathering on about "fraud", "election rigging" and jailing Conservative MPs.

[madmax]

Regardless,

What the hell where these Cons thinking? This is one big Scam against the taxpayer.

[waldo]

Yet, the opposition throws around words like "fraud", "theft" etc. Just now on Question Period Ignatieff lamented that MPs involved "face jail time". What a bunch of hooey.

Looking at the Public Prosecutor's website, the present action clearly falls under "Regulatory Prosecutions".

(my bolding)

http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/ar10-ra10/04.html#section2_4

No mention of fraud, no mention of possible jail time.

Either the opposition is unaware of the actual process or are willfully ignoring what they know, preferring to continue blathering on about "fraud", "election rigging" and jailing Conservative MPs.

perhaps you should have simply checked the Canada Elections Act and its enforcement, particularly sentencing avenues available for breaches of the act:

Sentencing

The Act provides for specific ranges of penalties for every offence that include fines and prison terms. Penalties are proportional to the gravity of the offence, and to the degree of intent required for the offence to occur. The courts have also been given greater flexibility in imposing alternative punishments in section 501, including:

* a fine of up to five times the amount by which a third party exceeded the limit on election advertising expenses

* community service

* compensation for damages

* specific performance of the obligation which gave rise to the offence (e.g. submit return)

* any other reasonable measure (e.g. charitable donation)

Finally, in section 502, a number of offences are listed as being either illegal or corrupt practices. These include serious wrongdoings that affect the integrity of the election process. Upon conviction for these listed offences, automatic consequences that apply for the next five years for an illegal practice, and for seven years for a corrupt practice, are:

* loss of entitlement to be a candidate, or to sit in the House of Commons

* loss of entitlement to hold office in the nomination of the Crown or of the Governor in CouncilThe Act provides for specific ranges of penalties for every offence that include fines and prison terms. Penalties are proportional to the gravity of the offence, and to the degree of intent required for the offence to occur. The courts have also been given greater flexibility in imposing alternative punishments in section 501, including:

* a fine of up to five times the amount by which a third party exceeded the limit on election advertising expenses

* community service

* compensation for damages

* specific performance of the obligation which gave rise to the offence (e.g. submit return)

* any other reasonable measure (e.g. charitable donation)

Finally, in section 502, a number of offences are listed as being either illegal or corrupt practices. These include serious wrongdoings that affect the integrity of the election process. Upon conviction for these listed offences, automatic consequences that apply for the next five years for an illegal practice, and for seven years for a corrupt practice, are:

* loss of entitlement to be a candidate, or to sit in the House of Commons

* loss of entitlement to hold office in the nomination of the Crown or of the Governor in Council

and for those special boosters who presume to play off the "criminality versus illegality" nuance:

Offences

Since the electoral reform of 2000, there is normally no longer a need to rely on section 126 of the Criminal Code to prosecute for an act or omission contrary to the Canada Elections Act. The Act includes a complete code for the conduct of federal elections: there are some 175 distinct offences in Part 19 covering acts or omissions committed by candidates, electors, voters, registered parties, third parties, employers, official agents and election officers.

oh my! How will the boosters spin this lil' ditty... this lil' nuance?

[DrGreenthumb]

Those Conservatives are such blatant crooks. Not only did these 67 people openly participate in this devious scheme - but they actually gave receipts to Elections Canada

Yeah FAKE reciepts, fraudulant reciepts, made up reciepts that we must have all seen copies of on Power and Politics by now. They were so stupid they even photocopied the fake reciepts they were using complete with the typo "NVOICE" instead op "Invoice". Try again. Pathetic they way you defend election fraud and cheating.