RCMP raids Tory party headquarters

[Michael Bluth]

\Welcome back Bluth!

Thanks Shakey.

I took a thee and a half month voluntary break and nothing much has changed.

If Dion actually has the cojones to force a spring election I'll be a more regular contributor.

So I guess that means I'll be seeing y'all regularly in the fall.

[segnosaur]

You do realize that four years is the average mandate for a majority government across Canada? Paul Martin called an election in part because the Opposition was calling him the unelected prime minister at the time.

Yes, 4 years is the average. However, as another poster pointed out, Martin called an election after 3 years and 7 months, approximately half a year earlier than average.

As for the opposition labeling him an 'unelected prime minister'... if the issue was one of honor and integrity (rather than political power), Paul Martin could have ignored the label, and proclaimed "I want the people to have all the facts before the election".

I certainly don't think the Conservatives are perfect; however, I don't like to see people whitewash the liberals and their record.

[Michael Bluth]

Yes, 4 years is the average. However, as another poster pointed out, Martin called an election after 3 years and 7 months, approximately half a year earlier than average.

As for the opposition labeling him an 'unelected prime minister'... if the issue was one of honor and integrity (rather than political power), Paul Martin could have ignored the label, and proclaimed "I want the people to have all the facts before the election".

I certainly don't think the Conservatives are perfect; however, I don't like to see people whitewash the liberals and their record.

Fair comment. Martin did serve as PM for more than five months before calling the election. Anybody claiming that he called the election because the opposition as calling him unelected should at least try and explain why he didn't call the election within weeks of being named PM ala John Turner or Pierre Trudeau.

[jdobbin]

Like the Liberals, whose own corruption knows almost no limits, yet who whine incessantly about the slightest possibility of even the most minor Tory transgression, you whine incessantly about anything you can possibly interpret as a personal insult.

Seems little to interpret. When you are angry and throwing out insults, there is little doubt that they are insults.

And like the Liberals, you're almost always wrong in your hysterical complaints.

Perhaps if the slightest questions or allusions to motivation disturb you so you should consider posting on rabble or somewhere else filled with fellow travelers who'll agree with whatever swill you post.

Looks like 2/3s of Canadians are fellow travellers. They don't believe the Tories on the Elections Canada issue according to today's Decima poll. Guess they are wrong too.

The right wing reaction to Elections Canada does not serve it well. The anger and accusations as well as smears that hit the media, the RCMP, civil servants and anyone else who dares question their decisions only underlines people's negative feelings about Harper and his supporters.

Your personalizing of issues shows contempt for the rules of the forum and it really isn't neccessary.

Edited May 1, 2008 by jdobbin

[nothinarian]

Seems little to interpret. When you are angry and throwing out insults, there is little doubt that they are insults.

Looks like 2/3s of Canadians are fellow travellers. They don't believe the Tories on the Elections Canada issue according to today's Decima poll. Guess they are wrong too.

Agree on the insults but disasgree on the poll

It seems biased and ask anybody who is not a blind partisan whether they believe what a politician says and they will inevitably be slanted towards the negative

[jdobbin]

Yes, 4 years is the average. However, as another poster pointed out, Martin called an election after 3 years and 7 months, approximately half a year earlier than average.

And it was one reason why the government lost its majority.

As for the opposition labeling him an 'unelected prime minister'... if the issue was one of honor and integrity (rather than political power), Paul Martin could have ignored the label, and proclaimed "I want the people to have all the facts before the election".

That was one of the reasons why he called the public inquiry. He was still fighting opposition from Chretien loyalists to calling one.

As soon as he was sworn in as prime minister, the Opposition would address him as the unelected prime minister in Question Period. They wanted him to call an election right away (or at least dared him to get a mandate). There didn't seem to be a lot of concern for waiting for four years on the part of critics.

In truth, it would have been better for Martin to have called the election right away on that issue of seeking a mandate from the electorate. At the time, it would have probably delivered a majority and would have left Harper in trouble instead.

I certainly don't think the Conservatives are perfect; however, I don't like to see people whitewash the liberals and their record.

This thread was not to whitewash the Liberal record. They lost the last election by a narrow margin to the Tories. The last several days of the election could have turned on a dime.

The public has a right to know if overspending on the part of the Tories to win helped seal that victory. The right wing reaction has to been to smear, to lash out and to deny. I guess we'll eventually find out.

The Opposition has moved off the issue to let Elections Canada get on with its investigation. The economy is growing as a major concern as the latest Decima poll on that issue is showing people don't have a lot of faith in Harper on that one either.

[jdobbin]

Agree on the insults but disasgree on the poll

It seems biased and ask anybody who is not a blind partisan whether they believe what a politician says and they will inevitably be slanted towards the negative

I don't know that poll was biased. Not all questions answered on the politicians were in the negative.

Bias would indicate that the poll question itself was asked in a way where it tried to direct the person to answer a certain way. I don't see that in this case.

[Shakeyhands]

This part is very interesting, though I don't think we have seen this reflected here on this forum.

Fifty-eight per cent of respondents told The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima survey they don't believe the Tories' insistence that they did nothing wrong. Only 26 per cent found the Conservative defence to be believable.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/420123

[nothinarian]

I don't know that poll was biased. Not all questions answered on the politicians were in the negative.

Bias would indicate that the poll question itself was asked in a way where it tried to direct the person to answer a certain way. I don't see that in this case.

The poll is not biased - the inherent mistrust of politicians by the populace(partisans excluded) skews any poll where trust in politicians or believing what they say is used in a survey question - IMHO

[Michael Bluth]

This part is very interesting, though I don't think we have seen this reflected here on this forum.

Could be that participants on this thread are more knowledgeable about politics than the average Canadian?

[scribblet]

This part is very interesting, though I don't think we have seen this reflected here on this forum.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/420123

I smell push polling LOL

This is from the National Post, it says it all as far as I'm concerned:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=483761

Elections Canada vendetta

In the end, a judge may decide that the way the Conservative Party of Canada transferred money to its local candidates to buy advertising in the 2006 federal election violated the Canada Elections Act. But even if that turns out to be the case, it would be the equivalent of a court ruling that a taxpayer's aggressive deduction violated some previously untested provision of the Income Tax Act. The tax-filer would have to pay taxes owing, interest and perhaps a small civil fine, but he would certainly not be a criminal.

The hue and cry raised over the Conservatives' alleged in-and-out scheme -- and the vigour with which Elections Canada is pursuing its investigation -- can hardly be justified by the seriousness (or lack thereof ) of what the Conservatives may have done. At worst, the Conservatives engaged in some creative financing in a grey area of elections law and by their actions will force Elections Canada or a judge to clarify the act.

-snip-

And that is a question that is best left to a judge to answer.

So why all the attention by Elections Canada to this alleged technical breach?

The official answer is that after the Liberals lost the last election they complained about the Tories transfers, a move that compelled Elections Canada to act. This is ironic, since it was the Liberals who perfected the transfer of funds to local candidates when they were in power and enjoyed a fundraising advantage over everyone else.

But why has Elections Canada been so aggressive in the pursuit of the Tories, even apparently violating the procedures set out for spending investigations under the Elections Act? Why did they search the Tories' offices before, apparently, they had given the Conservatives the notification required under law? Why were armed police involved in the search? And how did the media and the Liberals find out about the search so that they arrived at Conservative HQ just moments after the police and Elections Canada investigators?

[jdobbin]

This is from the National Post, it says it all as far as I'm concerned:

Just a re-hash of the Tory response. They keep saying they were cooperating but the invoices and other unanswered questions led to the warrant.

If the Tories feel that Elections Canada has failed its mandate or is doing something partisan, they should launch a public inquiry.

[Michael Bluth]

This is the best part of the NP commentary.

The hue and cry raised over the Conservatives' alleged in-and-out scheme -- and the vigour with which Elections Canada is pursuing its investigation -- can hardly be justified by the seriousness (or lack thereof ) of what the Conservatives may have done. At worst, the Conservatives engaged in some creative financing in a grey area of elections law and by their actions will force Elections Canada or a judge to clarify the act.

Why did Elections Canada go so hard on this one?

Because the CPC dared to question their authority? Is EC just putting the CPC in its place?

Shouldn't a 'non-partisan' agency act in a non-partisan manner?

[noahbody]

The easiest fix here is to stop giving rebates at the local level, since it is a temporary business. That would enable a party to transfer money to riding while not affecting the taxpayer.

[BubberMiley]

My posts take the tone of those I converse with. If their tone and behaviour is insulting my response will be, as well.

Actually, I would say the opposite is true, and that can be proven in this very thread. You called my anonymous persona “stupid” in response to a simple request to clarify what you said—nothing that even resembled a personal attack. I could respect someone who was man enough to say “Yeah, I enjoy insulting people. So what?” But those who try to make it seem like they’ve been provoked when they haven’t are rather cowardly, don't you think?

[BubberMiley]

In the end, a judge may decide that the way the Conservative Party of Canada transferred money to its local candidates to buy advertising in the 2006 federal election violated the Canada Elections Act. But even if that turns out to be the case, it would be the equivalent of a court ruling that a taxpayer's aggressive deduction violated some previously untested provision of the Income Tax Act. The tax-filer would have to pay taxes owing, interest and perhaps a small civil fine, but he would certainly not be a criminal.

But if that person, looking for an "aggressive deduction" falsified his receipts, he would, indeed, be a criminal.

[Michael Bluth]

The easiest fix here is to stop giving rebates at the local level, since it is a temporary business. That would enable a party to transfer money to riding while not affecting the taxpayer.

To do so would probably require an increase in the limits on personal donations. A package of change the CPC would wholeheartedly welcome. But would any of the other parties? Doubtful. That's why we will never see it happen.

[jdobbin]

RCMP to help Elections Canada to analyze material.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/tory-raid.html

New court documents say the RCMP will help Elections Canada analyze computer files seized in last month's raid on Conservative headquarters in Ottawa.

The computer hard drives were taken from the Tories' Ottawa offices in March under a search warrant executed by the RCMP at the request of elections commissioner William Corbett.

Corbett, who enforces the Canada Elections Act, launched an investigation in April 2007 after chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand challenged Tory spending claims in the 2006 election.

More involved in the raid than just standing around, it seems.

[BubberMiley]

I took a thee and a half month voluntary break and nothing much has changed.

Yeah, that's believable. After your "self-imposed" exile, you come back months later with a flurry of posts in rapid succession about how the mods have discriminated against you.

Almost as believable as the Tories story that they're innocent.

[Michael Bluth]

Yeah, that's believable. After your "self-imposed" exile, you come back months later with a flurry of posts in rapid succession about how the mods have discriminated against you.

Almost as believable as the Tories story that they're innocent.

So by the logic in this post...

I could respect someone who was man enough to say “Yeah, I enjoy insulting people. So what?” But those who try to make it seem like they’ve been provoked when they haven’t are rather cowardly, don't you think?

what exactly are you 'man enough' to say?

[BubberMiley]

what exactly are you 'man enough' to say?

What makes you think I'm a man?

[madmax]

Because the CPC dared to question their authority? Is EC just putting the CPC in its place?

Shouldn't a 'non-partisan' agency act in a non-partisan manner?

Best defence is a Good Offence.

Didn't work for Conrad Black.

The Other defence is to plead ignorance..

The CPC couldn't plead ignorance, like the Liberals Pretended to do, so, the CPC has to attack, but the strategy has put them in the spotlight...

[Argus]

Actually, I would say the opposite is true, and that can be proven in this very thread. You called my anonymous persona “stupid” in response to a simple request to clarify what you said—nothing that even resembled a personal attack.

Honesty is not your strong suit is it? I did no such thing, so I invite you to link to that particular post so anyone can see my calling someone stupid (as opposed to implying they were stupid) and their "simple request to clarify".

Edited May 2, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

Seems little to interpret. When you are angry and throwing out insults, there is little doubt that they are insults.

You mean like there's little doubt you are propagandizing for the Liberal Party?

Looks like 2/3s of Canadians are fellow travellers. They don't believe the Tories on the Elections Canada issue according to today's Decima poll. Guess they are wrong too.

Canadians, by and large, are not terribly well-informed about anything. They've seen the big screaming headlines from the media and there really isn't anything for the Tories to do to convince them otherwise. That's what you and your party are counting on in pushing this so much.

If the judge finds what they did legal that will change, of course.

The right wing reaction to Elections Canada does not serve it well. The anger and accusations as well as smears that hit the media, the RCMP, civil servants and anyone else who dares question their decisions

Oh give it a rest. I wonder if Greg could make violins play a sad song whenever you post so we know how dreadful the hardship is you labour under.

[Argus]

RCMP to help Elections Canada to analyze material.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/tory-raid.html

More involved in the raid than just standing around, it seems.

Not really, though I can see where your party feels this is a good spin on things.

The RCMP will help any government department or agency to analyze hard drives where there is any suspicion of wrongdoing, and where that department or agency feels it does not have the capability to do so itself.

It is curious, however, that Elections Canada does not seem to believe its IT people are capable of analysing a hard drive. I know our own Internal Security people like to brag about their abilities, and how they were trained by the RCMP.

But if you want to help keep things in the papers, then you simply send an email to the RCMP asking for their assistance - even though your own IT people are perfectly capable of doing it themselves, then you breathlessly notify the press that the RCMP will be going over these things.