Harper STILL has not complied with Chief Electoral Officer request

gerryhatrick · September 21, 2006

Federal elections officer disputes Tory defence of donations

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley repudiated Tuesday all the arguments Conservatives have used to justify their party's failure to disclose up to $1.7-million in donations.

snip

Treasury Board President John Baird, the Harper government's point man on ethics, and Conservative party brass have maintained that the fees did not constitute donations because they simply covered the costs of staging the convention, which did not turn a profit.

Mr. Kingsley bluntly demolished that argument.

“Profit's got nothing to do with it,” he told the committee.

Under the Elections Act, Mr. Kingsley said: “A fee paid to attend a political event of a registered party amounts to a contribution to the party except where the attendee receives some tangible benefit having a commercial value.”

snip

Only two weeks ago, Conservative executive director Michael Donison explicitly told the same Senate committee that his party had complied with Mr. Kingsley's request.

“Yes, we have . . . We are dealing with Elections Canada on that matter and we will comply with whatever requirements they have,” Mr. Donison said.

However, Mr. Kingsley told The Canadian Press that he has yet to receive the convention books.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Can you f'n believe this?

The funniest part is that this was buried as a little "Canada brief" item on page A9 today.

CPC is asked for Convention books....CPC says they will turn over books.....2.5 months go by...CPC says they've turned over books....Chief Electoral Officer says no books yet. CPC says it didn't break the law, Chief Electoral Officer says if they did what they say they did they broke the law.

WTF is going on and why isn't this front page? Not only is a law apparently broken, but they're delaying a request for the books for months and denying any wrongdoing in the process.

Remember Stronach, she was accused of not declaring a receipt and it was on the front page for two days!!!

Oh that "Liberal press"!

Will Harper turn over the books he's been asked for, yes or no?

Rovik · September 21, 2006

Looks like the Conservatives are picking up Liberal habits.

To bad, since Harper said he was going to clean up the system, yet it seems the Conservatives are on the road to being as bad as the Liberals. Sad.

gerryhatrick · September 21, 2006

Looks like the Conservatives are picking up Liberal habits.
To bad, since Harper said he was going to clean up the system, yet it seems the Conservatives are on the road to being as bad as the Liberals. Sad.

I don't remember the Liberals ever claiming to have done something as serious as handing over books to the Chief Election Officer when they hadn't.

If they made an honest mistake at the convention, then oh well. Admit it and take the lumps. That would have been the smart thing.

Instead they're just publically protesting and proclaiming innocence and claiming they've turned over books that they haven't.

It is the most bizarre behaviour I've ever seen in Canadian politics.

Ricki Bobbi · September 21, 2006

It is the most bizarre behaviour I've ever seen in Canadian politics.

Hmmm, $1.14 million dollars illegally given to party supporter in the name of promoting national unity isn't as bizarre in your mind? No bias there at all. :lol:

geoffrey · September 21, 2006

It is the most bizarre behaviour I've ever seen in Canadian politics.

Hmmm, $1.14 million dollars illegally given to party supporter in the name of promoting national unity isn't as bizarre in your mind? No bias there at all.

Or talking to your dogs/dead wife. I thought that was far more bizarre. <_<

gerry is right here to an extent, the law is the law, the CPC should abide by it or face public criticism.

Ricki Bobbi · September 21, 2006

Or talking to your dogs/dead wife. I thought that was far more bizarre.
gerry is right here to an extent, the law is the law, the CPC should abide by it or face public criticism.

A much better example of bizarre.

Completely agreed about abiding by the law.

Here's an interesting little tidbit from the article that was conveniently cut in the OP.

The independent elections watchdog, who is still investigating the matter, would not say outright that the governing party broke the law.

Until Kingsley says it outright this is a non-story.

gc1765 · September 21, 2006

The independent elections watchdog, who is still investigating the matter, would not say outright that the governing party broke the law.

Until Kingsley says it outright this is a non-story.

Why do you care what Kingsley says? You know the facts, why not judge for yourself? Do you think it's not clear that the rules were broken? I'd say the rules were broken, it's hard to debate that, the only question is whether they were broken deliberately or not. I'd say probably not, but then why haven't they handed over all their books? Do they think it will make them look bad if it turns out they made a mistake? I'd say it makes them look worse not co-operating as fully as possible.

Ricki Bobbi · September 21, 2006

Why do you care what Kingsley says? You know the facts, why not judge for yourself? Do you think it's not clear that the rules were broken? I'd say the rules were broken, it's hard to debate that, the only question is whether they were broken deliberately or not. I'd say probably not, but then why haven't they handed over all their books? Do they think it will make them look bad if it turns out they made a mistake? I'd say it makes them look worse not co-operating as fully as possible.

Because Kingsley is responsible for investigating the allegations and I honestly don't know enough about the case to make an informed decision. I don't think anybody can from just reading that story.

Do you know exactly how much the CPC has done to co-operate and what would be considered full co-operation? I don't and we'll have to see what Kingsley finds in his investigation.

What if the CPC has sent already sent over a set of *books*, but it might not have included exactly the information needed? Accounting can take a long time for a number of reasons. 2 1/2 months is not an exceptionally long time to received a report. Any number of non-criminal things could have held it up. The *books* are probably kept by professional accountiants who are doing it as volunteers. Maybe they got busy at work. Filing the reports might require having to go back to vendors to get backup copies of invoices. yada yada yada...

This will deservedly become a much bigger story if the allegations are proven true. It's just too early to make an informed decision.

Look how long it took for the sponsorship scandal to gain national prominence...

gc1765 · September 21, 2006

Because Kingsley is responsible for investigating the allegations and I honestly don't know enough about the case to make an informed decision. I don't think anybody can from just reading that story.

The rules stipulate that political donations are disclosed. Kingsley says that the donations were not reported. Seems pretty apparent to me that the rules were broken. I don't need Kingsley to tell me 1 + 1 = 2.

Do you know exactly how much the CPC has done to co-operate and what would be considered full co-operation? I don't and we'll have to see what Kingsley finds in his investigation.
What if the CPC has sent already sent over a set of *books*, but it might not have included exactly the information needed? Accounting can take a long time for a number of reasons. 2 1/2 months is not an exceptionally long time to received a report. Any number of non-criminal things could have held it up. Volunteers in accounting departments, having to go back to vendors to get backup copies of invoices. yada yada yada...

I know what Kingsley has said. He says he asked the conservatives for their convention books. He also says that he has not recieved those books. I am assuming that Kingsley is not a liar. Full cooperation on the part of the conservatives would require at least what was asked of them. So, they are not cooperating fully.

Now, why would it take 2 and a half months? Don't they keep records of these sorts of things as they happen, instead of months later? The law also stipulates that the records are provided within 30 days of the end of the fiscal period. I assume that every other fiscal period, the conservatives handed over their books in time, that is within 30 days. How come they can produce a report in 30 days most of the time, but not be able to produce it in 2 and a half months this time when they are being asked for it?

gerryhatrick · September 21, 2006

Here's an interesting little tidbit from the article that was conveniently cut in the OP.

Typically articles posted to forums are expected to contain a minority of the text to avoid copyright issues.

Your "tidbit" was not judged relavent since it's the obvious comment from the Chief Electoral Officer in advance of getting the books from the Conservatives.

I didn't "cut" it. It wasn't included because it didn't compete with the other information.

gerryhatrick · September 21, 2006

The latest twist on this bizarre situation:

A senior Tory official said he would not send Kingsley the books because the matter was being handled by the commissioner of Canada elections, who investigates complaints.
"The Liberal party chose to escalate this matter into a complaint to the commissioner," Michael Donison, the party's executive director, said in a letter released yesterday.

"(This) is why Mr. Kingsley's office has not received, and will not be receiving, information from us on this matter as we are dealing with the commissioner's office, exactly where the Liberal party placed the matter."

However, the commissioner reports directly to Kingsley, who stated unequivocally on behalf of Elections Canada that the information was not provided.

http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=1050421501457

All that on the same day the PM's director of communications is quoted as saying they have turned over the books:

The federal Conservatives are already under the eye of chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley for failing to disclose that $1.74 million in delegate's fees were collected at the convention doors in 2005. Each of the 2,900 voting party members was charged $600 to attend the policy convention.
''This issue is before the commissioner of Elections Canada,'' said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's director of communications. ''We have supplied what they've asked for. If the commissioner of Elections Canada rules otherwise, then we will comply with the ruling.''

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...05c&k=94429

Very strange. Why are they digging themselves a hole? It makes no sense.

RB, can you ask your boss what the deal is? Why are they turning a simple matter into a big problem for themselves?

Ricki Bobbi · September 22, 2006

Now, why would it take 2 and a half months? Don't they keep records of these sorts of things as they happen, instead of months later? The law also stipulates that the records are provided within 30 days of the end of the fiscal period. I assume that every other fiscal period, the conservatives handed over their books in time, that is within 30 days. How come they can produce a report in 30 days most of the time, but not be able to produce it in 2 and a half months this time when they are being asked for it?

You clearly don't understand the nature of accounting. Sure they would have kept copies of the receipts they gave out and the invioces for what they paid out. They wouldn't, and couldn't, do the reports real time.

My guess would be that *all* political parties have asked for and received extensions on the 30 day time limit for the provision of reports.

gerryhatrick · September 22, 2006

Now, why would it take 2 and a half months? Don't they keep records of these sorts of things as they happen, instead of months later? The law also stipulates that the records are provided within 30 days of the end of the fiscal period. I assume that every other fiscal period, the conservatives handed over their books in time, that is within 30 days. How come they can produce a report in 30 days most of the time, but not be able to produce it in 2 and a half months this time when they are being asked for it?

You clearly don't understand the nature of accounting. Sure they would have kept copies of the receipts they gave out and the invioces for what they paid out. They wouldn't, and couldn't, do the reports real time.

My guess would be that *all* political parties have asked for and received extensions on the 30 day time limit for the provision of reports.

I've had quite a bit of exposure to accounting.

When people say "the books" for an event, they're basically talking about the receipts and invoices or copies of. They don't have to write up too many statements to satisfy the requirement to "turn over the books".

And it's a red herring to speak of extensions past fiscal period deadlines and how other parties may have received them in the past. 30 day deadlines and extensions are moot.

The issue is that they've been asked for their convention books and have been publically claiming for 2.5 months that all requested has been provided and/or they've "fully" cooperated, YET it is now apparent that they have not turned over what's been requested of them.

Topaz · September 22, 2006

I've watch C-Pac and I've watch Baird try to justify everything the Cons do and at the end of every speech or comment he does, he slams the Liberal govt for the scam they had as if its justifies what the Cons have done or not done. I fear the Cons could be "cherry-picking" their answers and a coverup seems to be on the horizon. Harper himself is over the $1000 alotment by 450!

gc1765 · September 22, 2006

My guess would be that *all* political parties have asked for and received extensions on the 30 day time limit for the provision of reports.

We don't really know whether the conservatives have asked for extensions in the past. If that's the case, why haven't they asked for an extension in this case if they can't come up with the records on time? At least then Kingsley would know what's going on and that the books are on their way. If this is the standard, then it should be no problem to get an extension again, right? Instead they seem to be claiming that they handed them over, but Kingsley says they haven't. If it's a simple matter of needing more time, why don't they explain that to Kingsley and clear things up? Why are they instead claiming that they've already handed over everything?

Ricki Bobbi · September 22, 2006

We don't really know whether the conservatives have asked for extensions in the past. If that's the case, why haven't they asked for an extension in this case if they can't come up with the records on time? At least then Kingsley would know what's going on and that the books are on their way. If this is the standard, then it should be no problem to get an extension again, right? Instead they seem to be claiming that they handed them over, but Kingsley says they haven't. If it's a simple matter of needing more time, why don't they explain that to Kingsley and clear things up? Why are they instead claiming that they've already handed over everything?

Those are all questions that need to be answered before we can judge their actions. *If* the records truly haven't been provided...

gc1765 · September 22, 2006

We don't really know whether the conservatives have asked for extensions in the past. If that's the case, why haven't they asked for an extension in this case if they can't come up with the records on time? At least then Kingsley would know what's going on and that the books are on their way. If this is the standard, then it should be no problem to get an extension again, right? Instead they seem to be claiming that they handed them over, but Kingsley says they haven't. If it's a simple matter of needing more time, why don't they explain that to Kingsley and clear things up? Why are they instead claiming that they've already handed over everything?

Those are all questions that need to be answered before we can judge their actions. *If* the records truly haven't been provided...

Are you implying that it's possible all the records were provided? Was Kingsley lying when he said they weren't?

gerryhatrick · September 22, 2006

Those are all questions that need to be answered before we can judge their actions. *If* the records truly haven't been provided...

You aren't paying attention to current events. That the CPC has not turned over their books is an established fact.

I will kick my post from the last page which you should read for confirmation of this fact. This kick for your info should be the post directly below this one...

gerryhatrick · September 22, 2006

Kick for RB. Note Michael Donison's words.

The latest twist on this bizarre situation:
A senior Tory official said he would not send Kingsley the books because the matter was being handled by the commissioner of Canada elections, who investigates complaints.
"The Liberal party chose to escalate this matter into a complaint to the commissioner," Michael Donison, the party's executive director, said in a letter released yesterday.

"(This) is why Mr. Kingsley's office has not received, and will not be receiving, information from us on this matter as we are dealing with the commissioner's office, exactly where the Liberal party placed the matter."

However, the commissioner reports directly to Kingsley, who stated unequivocally on behalf of Elections Canada that the information was not provided.

http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=1050421501457

All that on the same day the PM's director of communications is quoted as saying they have turned over the books:

The federal Conservatives are already under the eye of chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley for failing to disclose that $1.74 million in delegate's fees were collected at the convention doors in 2005. Each of the 2,900 voting party members was charged $600 to attend the policy convention.
''This issue is before the commissioner of Elections Canada,'' said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's director of communications. ''We have supplied what they've asked for. If the commissioner of Elections Canada rules otherwise, then we will comply with the ruling.''

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...05c&k=94429

Very strange. Why are they digging themselves a hole? It makes no sense.

RB, can you ask your boss what the deal is? Why are they turning a simple matter into a big problem for themselves?

gerryhatrick · September 26, 2006

Isn't it interesting.......we have Conservatives telling us repeatedly that they've complied with all requests for documents from the chief electoral officer......and as it turns out they have not.....yet it's not even in the news. They went from claiming that the books had been turned over to saying they won't turn them over, and it garners a peep on page 9.

The Volpe campaign gets saddled with an obvious stupid mistake (obviously a mistake because there's no benifit to signing up dead people) and it's 24/7 coverage!!!

No doubt tomorrows papers will carry this non-story extensively, further demonstrating the lie of a Liberal media.

Ricki Bobbi · September 26, 2006

Are you implying that it's possible all the records were provided? Was Kingsley lying when he said they weren't?

Not accusing Kingsley of lying. Things get lost, people misplace things.

No big conspiracy theory. Just saying there is no reason to jump the gun.

watching&waiting · September 26, 2006

Gerry as you can see the CPC are very busy saving us billions of dollars and make our lives better after the Liberal debacle. So you may have to forgive them if they are late in accounting for trival things. Only you care about this and as you can see very few here have a interest in it. So if you ask me, you do not count for anything so I hope the take their time about giving an accounting of the books.

Ricki Bobbi · September 26, 2006

Gerry as you can see the CPC are very busy saving us billions of dollars and make our lives better after the Liberal debacle. So you may have to forgive them if they are late in accounting for trival things. Only you care about this and as you can see very few here have a interest in it. So if you ask me, you do not count for anything so I hope the take their time about giving an accounting of the books.

Bravo sir. Well said.

gerryhatrick · September 26, 2006

Are you implying that it's possible all the records were provided? Was Kingsley lying when he said they weren't?

Not accusing Kingsley of lying. Things get lost, people misplace things.

No big conspiracy theory. Just saying there is no reason to jump the gun.

Huh? What are you talking about?

The situation is clear. Kingsley asked for documents/books related to the convention and they have not been provided. What are you talking about with your "lost" and "misplaced" references?

Ricki Bobbi · September 26, 2006

Huh? What are you talking about?
The situation is clear. Kingsley asked for documents/books related to the convention and they have not been provided. What are you talking about with your "lost" and "misplaced" references?

Because Kingsley doesn't have them doesn't mean the CPC didn't provide them to an elections canada official.

Think Gerry. Maybe before you became a geriatric you had that ability. :lol: