31 witnesses summoned in Tory

[jdobbin]

Looks like it is going to be an explosive fall session.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0805?hub=Canada

A Commons committee probing the Conservatives' "in-and-out" scheme is sending an extraordinary 31 summonses to witnesses.

Liberal chair Paul Szabo says the move -- which compels witnesses to testify -- is necessary because officials have had difficulty reaching many Tories involved in the ad scheme.

The committee is looking into $1.3-million worth of Conservative advertising expenses from the 2006 election.

[madmax]

Looks like it is going to be an explosive fall session.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0805?hub=Canada

Well that is bad and good timing. Good in that it is after the By Elections. Bad in that it is before the General Elections.

It just isn't going to show well, and will discourage more people from voting.

[jdobbin]

It just isn't going to show well, and will discourage more people from voting.

You don't believe this should be looked in to?

I'd rather the issue be settled of it being right or wrong before the next election so it doesn't happen again.

[maldon_road]

A Commons committee probing the Conservatives' "in-and-out" scheme is sending an extraordinary 31 summonses to witnesses.

Liberal chair Paul Szabo says the move -- which compels witnesses to testify -- is necessary because officials have had difficulty reaching many Tories involved in the ad scheme.

The committee is looking into $1.3-million worth of Conservative advertising expenses from the 2006 election.

Let's not confuse this with democracy. These are all opposition witnesses. The opposition majority on the committee voted not to hear any Tory witnesses.

[Wild Bill]

Let's not confuse this with democracy. These are all opposition witnesses. The opposition majority on the committee voted not to hear any Tory witnesses.

No Tory witnesses?

Isn't that a bit much, even for a partisan committee?

Geez, some folks complain about too many Tory lawsuits against the Liberals yet they'll stack a committee witness list.

Politics, plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, plus la guerre...

[madmax]

No Tory witnesses?

Politics, plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, plus la guerre...

Which CPC MPs wish to be summoned? How many CPC MPs are tied to the In and Out Scheme? I would think that they all should testify. I also think that the CPC MPs who choose not to engage in the scam should be allow to speak.

What is the point of not having those involved speak?

[maldon_road]

No Tory witnesses?

Isn't that a bit much, even for a partisan committee?

Geez, some folks complain about too many Tory lawsuits against the Liberals yet they'll stack a committee witness list.

Politics, plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, plus la guerre...

Nobody knows if Dion will grow any balls or not during the summer and force an election this autumen. So, from now until the mandatory election in the fall of 2009 it will be all politics - just like happens in the US.

[noahbody]

The committee really needs to answer two questions:

Was there a loophole? (Yes)

Should it be closed? (Yes)

Done.

[jdobbin]

The committee really needs to answer two questions:

Was there a loophole? (Yes)

Should it be closed? (Yes)

Done.

The Tories have been saying there isn't a loophole and are prepared to use the process again this election. They don't think there has been any hearing on that matter. Period.

Edited August 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[Visionseeker]

This is the one issue that really baffles me. I mean Harper & Co are supposedly a smart bunch, why then didn’t they mea culpa when this first came out? They would’ve taken some lumps then, sure. But it wouldn’t have taken them out.

Betting that the wider electorate will swallow this trite argument that Elections Canada is biased against the CPC is really rather foolish. They’re approaching an electoral contest were they’ll be objectively pegged as cheaters.

That stuff sticks.

[segnosaur]

I do think its necessary to get a proper ruling on this case.

But, I have to wonder, what exactly is the point of this this committee getting involved? Unlike (for example) the sponsorship scandal, the basic facts already seem to be known, and the issue is already being handled by other organizations. Is there more to this than just providing political fodder?

[Keepitsimple]

I do think its necessary to get a proper ruling on this case.

But, I have to wonder, what exactly is the point of this this committee getting involved? Unlike (for example) the sponsorship scandal, the basic facts already seem to be known, and the issue is already being handled by other organizations. Is there more to this than just providing political fodder?

No.

[jdobbin]

I do think its necessary to get a proper ruling on this case.

But, I have to wonder, what exactly is the point of this this committee getting involved? Unlike (for example) the sponsorship scandal, the basic facts already seem to be known, and the issue is already being handled by other organizations. Is there more to this than just providing political fodder?

There are organizations looking at the legal aspects. Parliamentary committees by their nature are political. The role of the committee is took into areas within their purview and to ask questions, make proposals and report back to Parliament.

At one time Harper believed in committees. Now, he talks about the tyranny of the majority. I don't suppose he would say that if he was the one that held the majority.

[madmax]

This is the one issue that really baffles me. I mean Harper & Co are supposedly a smart bunch, stubborn bunch, thick headed bunch....

That stuff sticks.

It sure does stick. Look from 2006 and you will see that Harpers rules his caucus in similar fashion. I am right, you are wrong, get with the program or get out. And when in the wrong, lie lie lie, deny deny deny and never give in and use/threaten litigation at every turn. It is a far different perspective then Chretian who managed to fool people and nothing stuck while he was in office. He maintained high polling numbers.

They are stuck in the polls because of this attitude that isn't going to change and it will get worse if the CPC heads to a majority government. This is what the people don't want. It's getting close to becoming the TTP. Temper Tantrum Party. Unfortuneately these tactics haven't been one offs, but are standard fare for the CPC.

[segnosaur]

The role of the committee is took into areas within their purview and to ask questions, make proposals and report back to Parliament.

Yes, I know what the purpose of committees is. But what type of questions will they ask that will be relevant? We pretty much know how the conservatives organized their scheme and why, so not much to learn there.

Proposals? Well, until the courts actually decide whether the Conservative's practices were legal or illegal, there's not too much than can be proposed.

[jdobbin]

Yes, I know what the purpose of committees is. But what type of questions will they ask that will be relevant? We pretty much know how the conservatives organized their scheme and why, so not much to learn there.

Sometimes it is the answers that are relevant. If the Tories show the Liberals and other parties used the same technique, it might show Elections Canada was offbase.

If the Tories acknowledge it was a loophole, they can either say they won't use it again or that they didn't believe it was illegal.

Proposals? Well, until the courts actually decide whether the Conservative's practices were legal or illegal, there's not too much than can be proposed.

I disagree. If all the parties agree is it a loophole, then they can expedite legislation to close it even it is found to be legal.

Harper was very quick to reduce to level of money that could be contributed to elections. In part, he did it because the taxpaper was paying for more of the party expenses and in part because it hurt the Liberals who had bigger donations from corporations that individuals.

Although Harper opposed such legislation when he was out of government, he has been strongly for it in power.

Harper should recognize that this loophole does an end run around the legislation even if it is legal.

[segnosaur]

Sometimes it is the answers that are relevant. If the Tories show the Liberals and other parties used the same technique, it might show Elections Canada was offbase.

But then, you're assuming that the NDP, Liberals and Bloc will be actively pursuing spending practices by their own parties, rather than just investigating the conservatives.

Given the amount of politicizing, I doubt that would happen.

Proposals? Well, until the courts actually decide whether the Conservative's practices were legal or illegal, there's not too much than can be proposed.

I disagree. If all the parties agree is it a loophole, then they can expedite legislation to close it even it is found to be legal.

But if the courts rule that the spending practices were illegal, then no loophole exists. Thus, no need for any changes to existing laws. Action would only be required if it were found to be a legal loophole. Why not wait until the courts rule?

[Shakeyhands]

But then, you're assuming that the NDP, Liberals and Bloc will be actively pursuing spending practices by their own parties, rather than just investigating the conservatives.

I may be mistaken but I believe it has already been stated that neither the Liberals, The BQ or the NDP have ever engaged in this practice, only the CPC.

[jdobbin]

But then, you're assuming that the NDP, Liberals and Bloc will be actively pursuing spending practices by their own parties, rather than just investigating the conservatives.

Given the amount of politicizing, I doubt that would happen.

The committee is a political one. This is how how system works. It is an adversarial one.

Nevertheless, work does get done.

But if the courts rule that the spending practices were illegal, then no loophole exists. Thus, no need for any changes to existing laws. Action would only be required if it were found to be a legal loophole. Why not wait until the courts rule?

No legal loophole may exist but it doesn't mean it isn't a loophole that legislation shouldn't address. Just because something isn't written in law doesn't mean that an action isn't done to legally circumvent it.

In addition, while the courts decide if the action is legal or not, the work of Parliament can't wait until the next election. If reforms are deemed necessary on election funding, it is within the purview of Parliament to ask those questions. The court won't ask how the system should operate nor will it create the legislation on future elections.

It seems that going to court has become a rather cheap way to shut down debate in the House. Everyone is told to wit till the courts decide. Well, in our system that can take years.

[segnosaur]

I may be mistaken but I believe it has already been stated that neither the Liberals, The BQ or the NDP have ever engaged in this practice, only the CPC.

Actually I think you are mistaken. The Conservatives have claimed that the Liberals have engaged in similar activities (although possibly on a smaller scale), although I'm sure the Liberals deny it.

From: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/l...189&k=46289

The Conservatives said Thursday transfers between parties and candidate campaigns are common among all federal parties. The Tories circulated what they called a random sample of seven Liberal candidates who, they say, followed the same process of transfers and payments between the party and its candidates.

[segnosaur]

But then, you're assuming that the NDP, Liberals and Bloc will be actively pursuing spending practices by their own parties, rather than just investigating the conservatives.

Given the amount of politicizing, I doubt that would happen.

The committee is a political one. This is how how system works. It is an adversarial one.

Nevertheless, work does get done.

I never claimed that work didn't get done by the committee in general, or that there wasn't a certain amount of adversarial politics. What I'm suggesting is that no useful work will be done in this instance, unless you consider bad publicity for the conservatives to be useful work.

No legal loophole may exist but it doesn't mean it isn't a loophole that legislation shouldn't address.

Ummm... that makes no sense. A loophole exists when there is a way to stick to the letter of the law, while violating the spirit. If there is no way to violate the letter of the law, then there is no loophole at all, and thus no legislation is needed.

In addition, while the courts decide if the action is legal or not, the work of Parliament can't wait until the next election. If reforms are deemed necessary on election funding, it is within the purview of Parliament to ask those questions.

Well, at least that argument makes some sense.

However, it is making a few questionable assumptions...

- That any such findings would result in useful suggestions that could be incorporated into law before an election

- That the committee is actually interested in making such suggestions/proposals, over and above the ability to simply bash the conservatives

It seems that going to court has become a rather cheap way to shut down debate in the House. Everyone is told to wit till the courts decide. Well, in our system that can take years.

Well, did you say the system is supposed to be 'adversarial'? Are you suggesting that its necessary for the conservatives to be extra nice, while the opposition parties can be as 'adversarial' as they want?

[jdobbin]

I never claimed that work didn't get done by the committee in general, or that there wasn't a certain amount of adversarial politics. What I'm suggesting is that no useful work will be done in this instance, unless you consider bad publicity for the conservatives to be useful work.

Why does it have to be bad publicity? The Tories could say to the committee that you're right: It was a loophole. We thought it was legal and still do. What should we do about it?

Ummm... that makes no sense. A loophole exists when there is a way to stick to the letter of the law, while violating the spirit. If there is no way to violate the letter of the law, then there is no loophole at all, and thus no legislation is needed.

It may not be a legal loophole. However, a political loophole doesn't smell as sweet.

However, it is making a few questionable assumptions...

- That any such findings would result in useful suggestions that could be incorporated into law before an election

- That the committee is actually interested in making such suggestions/proposals, over and above the ability to simply bash the conservatives

Useful legislation has resulted before.

Personally, I think the in and out funding should be done away with even if it is found to be legal. It lacks transparency and operates as a shell game.

I don't think committee meeting should be avoided just because they ask embarrassing questions.

Well, did you say the system is supposed to be 'adversarial'? Are you suggesting that its necessary for the conservatives to be extra nice, while the opposition parties can be as 'adversarial' as they want?

Not at all. I'm saying that the court system should be used to stifle political debate.

[Shakeyhands]

Actually I think you are mistaken. The Conservatives have claimed that the Liberals have engaged in similar activities (although possibly on a smaller scale), although I'm sure the Liberals deny it.

From: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/l...189&k=46289

The Conservatives said Thursday transfers between parties and candidate campaigns are common among all federal parties. The Tories circulated what they called a random sample of seven Liberal candidates who, they say, followed the same process of transfers and payments between the party and its candidates.

This link was posted in another thread and seems to bear out what I was saying...

Mr. Mayrand told a House of Commons committee last week he had examined expense claims for the 2004 and 2006 campaigns and did not find similar financial transactions by other parties, contrary to the Tories' claim that the Liberals, Bloc Québécois and NDP have all used in-and-out transfers to fund their own advertising campaigns.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story....15-e23b289f16da

[bk59]

Let's not confuse this with democracy. These are all opposition witnesses. The opposition majority on the committee voted not to hear any Tory witnesses.

No Tory witnesses?

Isn't that a bit much, even for a partisan committee?

Geez, some folks complain about too many Tory lawsuits against the Liberals yet they'll stack a committee witness list.

Seems to me that there are a number of Tory witnesses on the list including "A dozen top Tory officials" (according to the article). They were summoned because the officials were either "unable to reach potential witnesses from the Conservative party or were told the witnesses did not want to attend voluntarily."

I suppose you were referring to the fact that witnesses suggested by the Conservative party were not added to the list. I can't imagine why the opposition parties would do that given that the Conservative Party blocked any attempt to even hold an inquiry in the first place. Sometimes politics comes back to bite you in the a**. The Conservatives were partisan when they had the chance, now the opposition parties are returning the favour. Does that make it right? (No.) But they can't complain about partisan politics after engaging in partisan politics for months.

Also, there is a legitimate case to be made that the Conservative Party's suggested witnesses really had nothing to do with the matter. They were trying to show that other parties engage in this behaviour even though there have been no allegations against other parties and Elections Canada has specifically said that no other parties engaged in this behaviour.

[YEGmann]

Elections Canada has specifically said that no other parties engaged in this behaviour.

1. Election Canada never said that.

2. Review process of different parties is different and subjective at EC.