31 witnesses summoned in Tory

[bk59]

1. Election Canada never said that.

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

1. Read the post just above mine. Read the link in that post. Yes, Elections Canada said exactly that.

2. Do you have any proof to support that allegation? A lot of people have made that allegation. So far no proof has been provided.

[Wild Bill]

1. Read the post just above mine. Read the link in that post. Yes, Elections Canada said exactly that.

2. Do you have any proof to support that allegation? A lot of people have made that allegation. So far no proof has been provided.

Well, EC may have said that but that doesn't make it true!

After all, EC is being sued! If M Mayrand were to say that other parties HAD done the same then EC loses!

I would have been very surprised if EC's internal investigation had come to any other conclusion. Why would you expect them to admit their guilt? That would immediately put M Mayrand's butt in a sling!

What will be more interesting is to see what evidence the Tories will bring to the trial. One would assume that they have sufficient evidence to substantiate their charges. If they don't, then they deserve what they get. Somehow, I don't think they would have been THAT dumb!

Edited August 11, 2008 by Wild Bill

[bk59]

Well, EC may have said that but that doesn't make it true!

No offense, but that is kind of a pointless argument. You can say that about anything. "The RCMP said there was not enough evidence to proceed with an investigation or charges in the Cadman affair. That doesn't make it true!" See? Kind of pointless. It does nothing to support an argument.

It is hard to swallow the argument that Elections Canada is blatantly biased against the Conservative Party given its past good reputation and (especially) when it was Harper who nominated the chief electoral officer Maynard.

After all, EC is being sued! If M Mayrand were to say that other parties HAD done the same then EC loses!

Except that this has been the position of Elections Canada from the very beginning. In fact, this is the reason that Harper is suing them! You can't then go and say this is just them covering their butts when this is exactly what got them sued in the first place.

What will be more interesting is to see what evidence the Tories will bring to the trial. One would assume that they have sufficient evidence to substantiate their charges. If they don't, then they deserve what they get. Somehow, I don't think they would have been THAT dumb!

One would assume. Then again one would assume that Elections Canada would have had sufficient evidence to make their original ruling. So I guess we'll see. People sue other people without having good cases all the time. Maybe Harper has some sort of two-for-one deal with his lawyers.

But to bring this all back to the witnesses thing, I really haven't heard anything that would justify hauling in people from other parties simply on the Conservative Party's say-so. How cooperative do you think the Conservatives would have been if the Liberals during the sponsorship inquiry demanded that Conservative Party members be hauled in front of the inquiry simply because the Liberals said "they did it too"? Especially if you had an independent organization saying that no other party was involved.

[segnosaur]

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?

Well, given the fact that the committee seems to have a majority of opposition members, I sincerely doubt that they'll be taking many actions that actually make the conservatives look good.

The Tories could say to the committee that you're right: It was a loophole. We thought it was legal and still do.

The tories have already stated their claims many times, to the Media, to the courts, and to the house of commons. What exactly do you think will be different during committee hearings?

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.

If there really is a need for new legislation, then the committee's activities are actually counterproductive.

Like I said, pretty much everyone knows how the tories were running their scheme. Instead of wasting time trying to call witnesses who will basically just repeat stuff that was already known, they could actually start coming up with amendments now.

[jdobbin]

Well, given the fact that the committee seems to have a majority of opposition members, I sincerely doubt that they'll be taking many actions that actually make the conservatives look good.

Why should it matter? If the Tories are confident of their claims, they should be able to hold their own.

This idea that one need not go to a committee hearing because it might be embarrassing would pretty much preclude having committees operating at all.

The tories have already stated their claims many times, to the Media, to the courts, and to the house of commons. What exactly do you think will be different during committee hearings?

Well, for one, former candidates are not answerable in the House. Some have not spoken to the media. Certainly the same holds true for party organizers.

If there really is a need for new legislation, then the committee's activities are actually counterproductive.

How so if a problem is not yet discovered in its fullest?

Like I said, pretty much everyone knows how the tories were running their scheme. Instead of wasting time trying to call witnesses who will basically just repeat stuff that was already known, they could actually start coming up with amendments now.

You seem confident that everyone knows. I'm still interested in hearing the mechanics of it, who was involved, who made the decisions, why it was thought to be legal and a opinion of those involved about whether they were comfortable with the decision to do this.

All of these questions can help shape future legislation.

[Topaz]

I do believe that Elections Canada is saying that the Tories committed fraud with the money. They said that the Tories said they used for one purpose and then did something else with it which wasn't illegal under the rules. Most of ther 31 people were "new" to politics so when the Tory Party told them what to do and not do, they did it. There are some higher ups that are named and knew better. This doesn't surprise me after we heard about Cadman, the NAFTgate, the overspending, the torture and the war and all the rest of the mess this government has created on their own.

[Wild Bill]

No offense, but that is kind of a pointless argument. You can say that about anything. "The RCMP said there was not enough evidence to proceed with an investigation or charges in the Cadman affair. That doesn't make it true!" See? Kind of pointless. It does nothing to support an argument.

I wasn't making any attempt at all to prove the charges true! Or false, for that matter. I simply pointed out that EC had investigated themselves and reported that they didn't do what they were charged with.

Would you have expected them to investigate themselves and report "Yes we did, by golly!" and then head into court?

[segnosaur]

Why should it matter? If the Tories are confident of their claims, they should be able to hold their own.

You are making the mistaken assumption that being 'confident' means that you will actually be convincing enough to "hold your own".

This idea that one need not go to a committee hearing because it might be embarrassing would pretty much preclude having committees operating at all.

Except that other committees, while they may be 'embarrassing', at least have the potential to discover new evidence.

How so if a problem is not yet discovered in its fullest?

But that's the thing... the problem pretty much is discovered to the fullest. They know who was involved (the campaign organizers and certain candidates), they know how the scheme worked (funding transfers between the federal and local candidate campaigns), and they know why they used the scheme (they had reached certain campaign limits). There ain't all that much more that needs to be discovered.

[Wild Bill]

You are making the mistaken assumption that being 'confident' means that you will actually be convincing enough to "hold your own".

Except that other committees, while they may be 'embarrassing', at least have the potential to discover new evidence.

But that's the thing... the problem pretty much is discovered to the fullest. They know who was involved (the campaign organizers and certain candidates), they know how the scheme worked (funding transfers between the federal and local candidate campaigns), and they know why they used the scheme (they had reached certain campaign limits). There ain't all that much more that needs to be discovered.

Well, how about discovering if indeed Elections Canada ignored similar actions by other parties, which after all is the very basis of the lawsuit.

[jdobbin]

You are making the mistaken assumption that being 'confident' means that you will actually be convincing enough to "hold your own".

Which the Tories don't seem be. They appear to have told witnesses not to show.

Except that other committees, while they may be 'embarrassing', at least have the potential to discover new evidence.

Do they? We have Tories walking out of numerous committees that they don't want to deal with.

Harper used to talk about making the committees were important into looking into affairs of government. Now, he dismisses their involvement in much of anything.

But that's the thing... the problem pretty much is discovered to the fullest. They know who was involved (the campaign organizers and certain candidates), they know how the scheme worked (funding transfers between the federal and local candidate campaigns), and they know why they used the scheme (they had reached certain campaign limits). There ain't all that much more that needs to be discovered.

So you say. There are plenty of people who have not spoken publicly on the issue.

This is like some the tobacco state legislators who tried to keep tobacco scientists and execs from appearing before committees. Surprisingly enough, a lot of information resulted from their appearances.

[Shakeyhands]

This is getting more and more interesting. With the flushness of the CPC coffers they should probably admit defeat on this and pay. Right or wrong the biggest jury on all of this will be John & Jane Q. Public. It's starting to not look so good on them.

[jdobbin]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...V2uBAS2F21vdG7g

Advertising executives who placed controversial campaign ads for the Conservative party in the last election say their firm was at one point worried about the legality of what the Tories wanted done.

One of the ad agents also told the Commons ethics committee that Patrick Muttart, a top aide to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was the main campaign contact for the "in and out" advertising scheme which has drawn fire from Elections Canada.

Andrew Kumpf, vice-president of Retail Media, said Muttart is also his chief contact with the Conservative party for advertising for the next federal election.

The Muttart disclosure was a surprise to MPs on the committee and New Democrat Pat Martin said it suggests control over the ad campaigns went "right to the top".

It looks like the party decided it was legal but the company was still wary about it. Given the reaction of Elections Canada, the company was correct that the legality was not on solid ground.

[YEGmann]

1. Read the post just above mine. Read the link in that post. Yes, Elections Canada said exactly that.

2. Do you have any proof to support that allegation? A lot of people have made that allegation. So far no proof has been provided.

1. Sorry, bk59, this is you must read both link and that post. EC just said that it did not find similar activity in the other parties submissions for 2004 and 2006 elections. They tried (for limited set of data) but did not find. This is very different from saying the other parties never did that.

This is not semantics. In this way EC gives itself shiny look in mass media immediately and reserves a room for withdrawal if (when) somebody presents facts showing the opposite. EC may say something like "Our announcement was based on following our approved procedures, which required review of 99 or 19 or 9 per cent of all submissions. Sorry we have the right for a mistake too."

2. Steve Janke (http://stevejanke.com) has done investifgation on how EC reviews election spending submissions. To his great surprise, EC assigns certain people to review certain parties and do not rotate them. Thus different people reviews different parties. Because different people interpret laws differently, there is no uniform standard applied to all parties equally.

And I would like to hear an answer why EC did not issued a warning to the Conservtives after 2004 elections. Was the scheme less "unlawful" then than now?

And you again: "The RCMP said there was not enough evidence to proceed with an investigation or charges in the Cadman affair. That doesn't make it true!" See?

Actually RCMP said that they reviewed all (absolutely all, 100%) relevant infromation plus liberals' gossips and found no (nill, zero) evidence of any wrongdoing. But yours (actually, I know, it's not yours) is a good try in the smear campaign.

[bk59]

1. Sorry, bk59, this is you must read both link and that post. EC just said that it did not find similar activity in the other parties submissions for 2004 and 2006 elections. They tried (for limited set of data) but did not find. This is very different from saying the other parties never did that.

OK... that is one way to look at it. But if they looked at all of the evidence they have and found no evidence of wrongdoing then what they are saying is, to the best of their knowledge, no other parties engaged in that conduct. In the same way that when the RCMP says they are not going to continue an investigation into the Cadman affair they are saying that, to the best of their knowledge, there is not enough evidence to continue. So Elections Canada did say that the other parties have not engaged in this behaviour. And of course if new evidence comes to light they can say they made a mistake. Just like how the RCMP can say they made a mistake if new evidence comes to light about the alleged bribe to Cadman. You can spin both of those situations in different directions if you want, but the fact remains that Elections Canada continues to say that it has no proof that other parties engaged in this conduct.

2. Steve Janke (http://stevejanke.com) has done investifgation on how EC reviews election spending submissions. To his great surprise, EC assigns certain people to review certain parties and do not rotate them. Thus different people reviews different parties. Because different people interpret laws differently, there is no uniform standard applied to all parties equally.

Different people doing the initial investigation does not mean there is no uniform standard. Generally these institutions have policies that can be applied. Whether or not a policy exists, allegations of this sort go up the chain of command. To someone who is in the position to tell the people looking at the other parties to look for the same info. Which is what happened when the issue got to the Chief Electoral Officer. They don't leave the interpretation of the laws up to the individuals without ensuring that they are all on the same page. Take Revenue Canada as an example. Do you really think that only one person can conduct all of the tax audits in Canada in order to get a standard interpretation?

And I would like to hear an answer why EC did not issued a warning to the Conservtives after 2004 elections. Was the scheme less "unlawful" then than now?

I think it is because they are only accusing the Conservatives of engaging in the scheme during the 2006 election.

Actually RCMP said that they reviewed all (absolutely all, 100%) relevant infromation plus liberals' gossips and found no (nill, zero) evidence of any wrongdoing.

They reviewed all evidence that they had. Just like Elections Canada in this debacle.

But yours (actually, I know, it's not yours) is a good try in the smear campaign.

While some of what is said against the Conservative Party certainly amounts to a smear campaign, most of the smearing is being done by the Conservative Party. They have attempted to smear Elections Canada as well as the opposition parties.

[Fortunata]

2. Steve Janke (http://stevejanke.com) has done investifgation on how EC reviews election spending submissions. To his great surprise, EC assigns certain people to review certain parties and do not rotate them. Thus different people reviews different parties. Because different people interpret laws differently, there is no uniform standard applied to all parties equally.

Steve Janke is known for seeing things through Conservative coloured glasses. His interpretation of anything is questionable given his partisan-ness.