Tories ditch 'in-and-out' case at Supreme Court

[MiddleClassCentrist]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/06/pol-supreme-court-conservatives.html

The Conservative Party of Canada has repaid taxpayers $230,198 for the "in-and-out" election financing dispute and dropped its appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada.

The party, currently fending off allegations of wrongdoing in the 2011 election over misleading telephone calls to voters, notified the Supreme Court last Friday that it wouldn't proceed with its case against Elections Canada.

The case stemmed from the 2006 election when an Elections Canada auditor raised questions after finding more than 65 nearly identical invoices filed by Conservative candidates for "local" advertising expenses.

Elections Canada looked into the expenses and said the Conservatives violated campaign financing rules by moving $1.3 million in and out of 67 ridings to pay for national ads. The manoeuvres allowed the party to exceed the campaign spending limits and allowed candidates to claim rebates on expenses that weren't incurred, the agency said.

Candidates can be reimbursed by Elections Canada for 60 per cent of their expenses and the national parties can make claims for 50 per cent of their expenses. Elections Canada refused to issue the more than $800,000 in total rebates to the Conservative Party and the party then sued to get the money.

They won the case in a lower court ruling, but in early 2011, the federal Court of Appeal unanimously overturned that ruling, saying Elections Canada had every right to deny the expenses.

The Conservatives brought the case to the Supreme Court, which granted the party leave to appeal in October.

Hearing was set for May

A tentative date for a hearing had been set for May 14, but now, the Conservatives have abandoned the appeal.

"This has been a long-standing administrative dispute with Elections Canada over whether certain campaign expenses should be counted as local or national," Fred DeLorey, Conservative party spokesman, said in a statement to CBC News.

"We are agreeing to disagree and will be dropping our appeal to the Supreme Court. We are amending our return under protest to reflect this."

Elections Canada confirmed that the Conservatives filed an amended election expense return and changed how they claimed national and local expenses. The chief electoral officer is now satisfied with those returns, a spokeswoman said.

"The chief electoral officer has reviewed and accepted the amended return, and is satisfied that it is in compliance with the Canada Elections Act," Elections Canada spokeswoman Diane Benson said.

"All monies owed by the candidates who participated in the media buy- and office-share programs have been repaid to the public treasury by the Conservative Party of Canada," she said. Office space that was claimed by local candidates in Quebec City and Montreal was deemed by Elections Canada to be used by the national party.

DeLorey said the the party "acted under the law as it was understood at that time" and that it later adjusted its practices for the 2008 and 2011 elections.

This civil case was separate from the four charges laid by Elections Canada against the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative Fund Canada, Senator Doug Finley (the party's campaign director in 2006), Senator Irving Gerstein, Michael Donison, and Susan Kehoe. They were accused of submitting "false or misleading" election expense documents.

The charges under the Canada Elections Act were regulatory, not criminal.

That case was settled in November when a deal was reached that saw charges dropped against the four senior officials, but guilty pleas were made by the organizations for which they made the decisions. The party was fined $52,000.

That settlement prompted questions about what would happen with the Conservatives' civil case against Elections Canada. With the appeal now dropped, the Court of Appeal ruling stands.

Of course they would,

Why would they want yet another example of their unethical decisions making headlines over a period of time?

[olpfan1]

E.C says they broke an election law and the CPC says they will agree to disagree?

And we are supposed to give these people the benefit of the doubt?

[cybercoma]

Sorry, officer. We'll have to agree to disagree about those pot plants.

[Sa'adoni]

6 years later and we know now, they cheated.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/tories-drop-supreme-court-appeal-over-2006-dispute-with-elections-canada-141688623.html

According of this a number of MPs are ineligible for office as of 2006.. and they are still ineligible. Including the defence minister I believe.

They were legally ineligible to run in 2008 due to election fraud in 2006. Likewise every election since then since ineligibility is for life.

And the party should be de-registered for this massive election fraud.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[Sa'adoni]

I looked didn't see it, it is there now..

[Sa'adoni]

6 years later and we know now, they cheated.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/tories-drop-supreme-court-appeal-over-2006-dispute-with-elections-canada-141688623.html

According of this a number of MPs are ineligible for office as of 2006.. and they are still ineligible. Including the defence minister I believe.

They were legally ineligible to run in 2008 due to election fraud in 2006. Likewise every election since then since ineligibility is for life.

And the party should be de-registered for this massive election fraud.

ILLEGITIMATE!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXwm_P6TKIo

How the hell can the governor general continue to let them sit, they ARE ELECTION FRAUDSTERS

IN A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WE CANNOT LET ELECTION FRAUDSTERS RUN THE GOVERNMENT.

DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT AND BAR THOSE WHO COMMITTED THE FRAUDS FROM RUNNING AGAIN. LIKEWISE DISSOLVE THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY THEY ARE CRIMINALS. IT TURNS PRISON BUILDING PROGRAMS INTO HOME BUILDING PROGRAMS FOR THE PARTY.

ILLEGITIMATE!!!!

Edited March 7, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[g_bambino]

How the hell can the governor general continue to let them sit...

Could you point, please, to the clause or clauses of the law that requires them to relinquish their seats for breaking electoral financing rules? As the article states: "The charges under the Canada Elections Act were regulatory, not criminal."

[ed.: sp]

Edited March 7, 2012 by g_bambino

[UofGPolitico]

6 years later and we know now, they cheated.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/tories-drop-supreme-court-appeal-over-2006-dispute-with-elections-canada-141688623.html

According of this a number of MPs are ineligible for office as of 2006.. and they are still ineligible. Including the defence minister I believe.

They were legally ineligible to run in 2008 due to election fraud in 2006. Likewise every election since then since ineligibility is for life.

And the party should be de-registered for this massive election fraud.

ILLEGITIMATE!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXwm_P6TKIo

How the hell can the governor general continue to let them sit, they ARE ELECTION FRAUDSTERS

IN A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WE CANNOT LET ELECTION FRAUDSTERS RUN THE GOVERNMENT.

DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT AND BAR THOSE WHO COMMITTED THE FRAUDS FROM RUNNING AGAIN. LIKEWISE DISSOLVE THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY THEY ARE CRIMINALS. IT TURNS PRISON BUILDING PROGRAMS INTO HOME BUILDING PROGRAMS FOR THE PARTY.

ILLEGITIMATE!!!!

There is a petition going around lobbying the GG on that very thing. It probably would still be fruitless, but it may be a better venue for you to vent through.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-right-honourable-david-johnston-governor-general-of-canada-dissolve-parliament-call-for-a-full-election

[madmax]

"The charges under the Canada Elections Act were regulatory, not criminal."

[ed.: sp]

Thats correct..

Guilty and in Violation.

[Topaz]

Can any of you who support the Tories explain why YOU support this party? knowing what you know about this party and all the scams they have pulled and gotten away with, do you still support them?

[g_bambino]

Thats correct..

That doesn't answer my question.

[Sa'adoni]

Could you point, please, to the clause or clauses of the law that requires them to relinquish their seats for breaking electoral financing rules? As the article states: "The charges under the Canada Elections Act were regulatory, not criminal."

[ed.: sp]

yeah they cheated. people shouldn't be able to cheat pay 50,000 dollars and keep 15 seats they cheated to win.

Embezzlement of tax payer dollars is still embezzlement even if you pay it back after you get caught.

People went to jail when the liberals did it.\\\

486. (1) Every candidate who contravenes subsection 83(1) (failure to appoint official agent) or 83(2) (failure to appoint auditor), section 87 (failure to appoint a replacement official agent or auditor), subsection 92.2(1) (accepting prohibited gift or other advantage) or 92.2(5) (failure to provide statement within required period) or paragraph 92.6( (providing incomplete statement) is guilty of an offence.

Marginal note:Offences requiring intent — summary conviction

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection 81(1) (refusal to give access to building or gated community) or subsection 81.1(1) (refusal to give access to place open to the public) is guilty of an offence.

Marginal note:Offences requiring intent — dual procedure

(3) Every person is guilty of an offence who

(a) contravenes section 89 (signing of nomination paper when ineligible);

( wilfully contravenes subsection 90(1) (ineligible person acting as official agent) or 90(2) (ineligible person acting as auditor);

© contravenes section 91 (making false statement re candidate);

(d) contravenes section 92 (publication of false statement of withdrawal of candidate);

(e) being a candidate, wilfully contravenes subsection 92.2(1) (accepting prohibited gift or other advantage);

(f) being a candidate, wilfully contravenes subsection 92.2(5) (failure to provide statement within required period); or

(g) being a candidate, contravenes paragraph 92.6(a) (providing statement containing false or misleading information) or knowingly contravenes paragraph 92.6( (providing incomplete statement).

2000, c. 9, s. 486; 2006, c. 9, s. 56; 2007, c. 21, s. 37.

Previous Version

just before the next set of rules they broke this past election...

and it is criminal...

Strict liability offences — summary conviction

summary convictions are actually considered crimes, just like indictable offences. with real jail

92.6 No candidate shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a statement referred to in subsection 92.2(3) that

(a) the candidate knows or ought reasonably to know contains a material statement that is false or misleading; or

( does not substantially set out the information required by that subsection.

2006, c. 9, s. 40.

Yet a reasonable person, including candidates both checked this, and contacted the conservative headquarters to verify.

Meanwhile the conservative headquarters provided information which was not legally accurate or intentionally provided false information. But a reasonable person would know that it was illegal. Those reasonable people should have contacted their lawyers not party headquarters for legal advice. Anyone with half a brain could tell that moving money around to make it look like you are underspending is illegal, for elections. (The party exercised willful negligence in not verifying with elections canada on the issue - they were complicit with election fraud the party must be disbanded. Allowing the party to exist and continue to commit electoral fraud will only further destroy democracy, they must be smitten.)

This is yet another reason why parties should have no legal standing or financial benefits.

They broke the law end of story. They committed election fraud multiple times. BOOT THEM OUT AND DON'T LET THEM BACK!

It is undemocratic to let them stay in office.

Anyone who was complicit in these electoral frauds including the party as an organization - its board and candidates who were should be locked out. Anyone legally responsible for what happened should be locked out.

This is true of the election fraud in 2006, the election fraud in 2008 and the election fraud in 2011.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[g_bambino]

You don't indicate what law you're quoting and nor do you provide any clause that states an MP must resign their seat, should they be found guilty of contravention of the rules.

As far as I can tell, even Elections Canada hasn't called for any involved MP to step down.

On what grounds, then, could the Governor General remove them from parliament? (I'm not even certain that's within the governor general's power, what with the supremacy of parliament and all. I believe the expulsion of a member is a matter for the House alone.)

[Topaz]

You don't indicate what law you're quoting and nor do you provide any clause that states an MP must resign their seat, should they be found guilty of contravention of the rules.

As far as I can tell, even Elections Canada hasn't called for any involved MP to step down.

On what grounds, then, could the Governor General remove them from parliament? (I'm not even certain that's within the governor general's power, what with the supremacy of parliament and all. I believe the expulsion of a member is a matter for the House alone.)

Maybe the GG could IF, he was given a petition signed by 60% of the voters who don't support this government and has lost confidence in it. I realize the opposition parties usually do this, but they don't have enough votes, so now its up to the Canadian voters. The opposition parties should find out and let Canadians know if this is possible and if not there's the next election.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Topaz

[g_bambino]

Maybe the GG could IF, he was given a petition signed by 60% of the voters who don't support this government and has lost confidence in it.

I'll assume you mean 60% of voters in each MP's riding (as opposed to 60% of voters nationally who've "lost confidence in the government"). If so, without any kind recall legislation, I believe such an action would be illegal, undoing centuries of precedent set back following the Glorious Revolution.

[Jack Weber]

Sorry, officer. We'll have to agree to disagree about those pot plants.

[MACKER]

You don't indicate what law you're quoting and nor do you provide any clause that states an MP must resign their seat, should they be found guilty of contravention of the rules.

As far as I can tell, even Elections Canada hasn't called for any involved MP to step down.

On what grounds, then, could the Governor General remove them from parliament? (I'm not even certain that's within the governor general's power, what with the supremacy of parliament and all. I believe the expulsion of a member is a matter for the House alone.)

The elections act duffus I don't see how you can't spout as if you know what you are talking about in regard to election law if you don't even recognize it from the elections act.

The Governor General can dissolve parliment at anytime. The fact the Conservative Party is a bunch of crooks and elections fraudsters is more than merited to boot the party. They deserve it .

They are illegitimate. They have no right to represent Canadians they stole the election through crime, kick them out.

Edited March 8, 2012 by MACKER

[MACKER]

It is good someone else is taking notice to this. The scumbags need to be removed right away. sign the petition to kill their government.

[Shakeyhands]

The elections act duffus

I do hope you have enjoyed your day here, I can't imagine that you'll still be around by the end of it. We try not to be so rude, ignorant and well.. childish around here.

Make an argument, have a testy debate, but leave the name calling out of it.

[Wild Bill]

The elections act duffus I don't see how you can't spout as if you know what you are talking about in regard to election law if you don't even recognize it from the elections act.

You know, this board is NOT rubble.com, thank the stars above! We do get a bit testy from time to time but we are nowhere near as insulting and downright rude and profane as that and other boards.

Being new, you might not be aware that this board has a different, more adult style.

I suggest you adapt or you will simply end up bounced!

[Wild Bill]

It is good someone else is taking notice to this. The scumbags need to be removed right away. sign the petition to kill their government.

Once again, you had better adapt!

[eyeball]

I'll assume you mean 60% of voters in each MP's riding (as opposed to 60% of voters nationally who've "lost confidence in the government"). If so, without any kind recall legislation, I believe such an action would be illegal, undoing centuries of precedent set back following the Glorious Revolution.

Interesting how you only need 25% of voters nationally to have 100% of the power.

As for your celebration of revolution, you would have been excoriating anyone for their revolutionary feelings if you were around in 1687.

[g_bambino]

This:

I don't see how you can't spout as if you know what you are talking about...

followed by this:

The Governor General can dissolve parliment at anytime.

Is deliciously ironic.

Where you got the idea that I've been "spout[ing] as if I know what I'm talking about in regard to election law", I can't quite fathom, since I've been asking for clarifiaction about election laws and rules. Thanks for pointing out that the other poster quoted the Canada Elections Act. Now, since you seem to fancy yourself quite the expert on election law, could you highlight for me where it's stated that an MP must resign his seat, should he be found guilty of contravention of the rules? Thanks.

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou would have been excoriating anyone for their revolutionary feelings if you were around in 1687.

And you would've been a leper with a shoe fetish. Isn't fantasy fun!

[cybercoma]

This:

followed by this:

Is deliciously ironic.

Where you got the idea that I've been "spout[ing] as if I know what I'm talking about in regard to election law", I can't quite fathom, since I've been asking for clarifiaction about election laws and rules. Thanks for pointing out that the other poster quoted the Canada Elections Act. Now, since you seem to fancy yourself quite the expert on election law, could you highlight for me where it's stated that an MP must resign his seat, should he be found guilty of contravention of the rules? Thanks.

I'm not really sure what that other poster is on about, but I'm curious.

In your opinion, if an MP is found to have broken election laws, regardless of what the actual penalty is, do you believe they ought to be required to forfeit their seat and a byelection be held?