Accoutability Act To be Amended

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/tories_accountability

Interesting that the Conservatives introduced the amendment on a Friday while the prime minister is out of the country and he refuses to answer questions about it.

The Tories broke the law. Time to fess up.

[geoffrey]

This is the nail in the coffin, what distinguishes them from the Liberals now?

[Topaz]

The differences is the Alliance/Cons talked, over and over again about the wrong doings of some of the Liberal party and make such a big deal about and said THEY would be honest and bring RESPECT back to the Canadian Parliament!! That's why Harper got a minority govt, Canadians were trying him out to see what kind of a PM he would be. NOW, we know, and there's lots going on behind the scenes, that isn't what he said his govt would be. Baird, every chance he gets keeps running down the Liberal party on being dishonest and now that is a joke, just like Baird , himself, is a joke or the parliamentary jester!!

[cybercoma]

They now want to change the accountability act to add that "payment . . . of a fee to participate in a registered party's convention is not a contribution" as long as the fees don't exceed the cost of running the convention.

A spokesman for Treasury Board President John Baird said the proposed amendment protects taxpayers from subsidizing political convention fees.

Seems reasonable to me and it would apply to all parties. Covering the costs of the conventions by having a fee for attending is leaps and bounds from stealing taxpayers' money to promote your party.

This is going to be a tool to stomp on the opposition come election time. They'll now be able to go back and say the NDP and Liberals wanted to strike down accountability, etc. And what will they come back with? Something about the conservatives raising contributions through convention fees? It's black and white according to the statements that those fees cannot excede the convention costs.

This is brilliant.

[Argus]

This is the nail in the coffin, what distinguishes them from the Liberals now?

Gee, that they're not stealing money from us? That we have no evidence of huge, billion dollar contracts going to their friends for crap we don't want or need? That there is some measure of integrity in government? That they're bringing some semblance of Canadian values into our foreign policy? That they're acting on issues rather than sitting back in the trough and doing nothing? That they're trying to reform institutions like the justice system and unwilling to waste money on dog and pony shows like the Liberals were with the gun legislation thing or Kyoto?

How can you even ask a stupid question like that over a non-issue like this? The violation of the rules was technical, at best. Nothing they did regarding their acceptance of money at the convention to pay for the convention was against the rules in any way, shape, or form. The only thing they failed to do was report the money. So what? What possible difference would it have made to anyone if they actually had reported it? It affected nothing. It's not like they were taking kickbacks across a table in brown paper bags and paying off the other side with taxpayers money. It's not like they were ordering government banks to loan money to their business partners - money never paid back. It's not like they were getting free legal services in exchange for handing out judgeships.

What are the two big strikes against them with the wishy-washy set? Afghanistan - where they've done nothing but support the troops on a mission the Liberals set in motion, and Kyoto, where they've done nothing but say openly what anyone with more than half a brain must have already known - that after 14 years of doing nothing, we had no way whatsoever of meeting our Kyoto goals.

This is a non-issue. I see nothing wrong with altering the proposed law to allow members to pay for a convention, as described. It affets nothing, I can see, and will benefit no party more than any other.

[jdobbin]

Seems reasonable to me and it would apply to all parties. Covering the costs of the conventions by having a fee for attending is leaps and bounds from stealing taxpayers' money to promote your party.

This is going to be a tool to stomp on the opposition come election time. They'll now be able to go back and say the NDP and Liberals wanted to strike down accountability, etc. And what will they come back with? Something about the conservatives raising contributions through convention fees? It's black and white according to the statements that those fees cannot excede the convention costs.

This is brilliant.

So you think that they should retroactively be covered under this amendment? Break the law and then change the rules?

[Argus]

Seems reasonable to me and it would apply to all parties. Covering the costs of the conventions by having a fee for attending is leaps and bounds from stealing taxpayers' money to promote your party.

This is going to be a tool to stomp on the opposition come election time. They'll now be able to go back and say the NDP and Liberals wanted to strike down accountability, etc. And what will they come back with? Something about the conservatives raising contributions through convention fees? It's black and white according to the statements that those fees cannot excede the convention costs.

This is brilliant.

So you think that they should retroactively be covered under this amendment? Break the law and then change the rules?

This is about as serious a breach of law as going 115 in a 100 zone.

[jdobbin]

This is a non-issue. I see nothing wrong with altering the proposed law to allow members to pay for a convention, as described. It affets nothing, I can see, and will benefit no party more than any other.

It has benefited one party already. The Conservatives had their convention and had a $2 million dollar advantage over the other parties.

They broke the law. And if they try to change the rules now and say it was okay, they are as corrupt as the government they say they replaced.

[Argus]

This is a non-issue. I see nothing wrong with altering the proposed law to allow members to pay for a convention, as described. It affets nothing, I can see, and will benefit no party more than any other.

It has benefited one party already. The Conservatives had their convention and had a $2 million dollar advantage over the other parties.

And if they had reported that money as donations would it have ceased to exist? Would they have no longer been able to use it? Would it have limited their use of other donations? In what way, precisely, have they had an advantage because of not reporting the fees at the convention as donations?

They broke the law. And if they try to change the rules now and say it was okay, they are as corrupt as the government they say they replaced.

That's like saying the guy who exposed his willie to cars passing by is the same as Paul Bernardo.

[jdobbin]

And if they had reported that money as donations would it have ceased to exist? Would they have no longer been able to use it? Would it have limited their use of other donations? In what way, precisely, have they had an advantage because of not reporting the fees at the convention as donations?

That's like saying the guy who exposed his willie to cars passing by is the same as Paul Bernardo.

If they had reported the money as donations, it would have limited the rest of their campaign by $2 million, a significant advantage in an election. If the Liberals had done this you be screaming blue murder.

If the guy exposing himself changed the law after doing so, it would be comparable.

[cybercoma]

They freed up $2 million of contributions by not using that money to fund the convention. Instead they made members pay a fee to cover the cost of the convention, are they not allowed to do this?

They weren't donations...there was a price for admission to cover the costs of the convention. I don't see a problem whatsoever with this, in fact I think it was a brilliant move to free up some much needed cash to fight an uphill battle against a party that was using taxpayers money to fund its campaign.

[Argus]

And if they had reported that money as donations would it have ceased to exist? Would they have no longer been able to use it? Would it have limited their use of other donations? In what way, precisely, have they had an advantage because of not reporting the fees at the convention as donations?

That's like saying the guy who exposed his willie to cars passing by is the same as Paul Bernardo.

If they had reported the money as donations, it would have limited the rest of their campaign by $2 million, a significant advantage in an election. If the Liberals had done this you be screaming blue murder.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. In what way would reporting the money as donations have limited the rest of their campaign? Is there an absolute limit on the amount of money one can raise? Is there an absolutely limit on what one can spend on a campaign - and if so why would this have qualified anyway as it was not spent on the campaign?

[jdobbin]

They freed up $2 million of contributions by not using that money to fund the convention. Instead they made members pay a fee to cover the cost of the convention, are they not allowed to do this?

They weren't donations...there was a price for admission to cover the costs of the convention. I don't see a problem whatsoever with this, in fact I think it was a brilliant move to free up some much needed cash to fight an uphill battle against a party that was using taxpayers money to fund its campaign.

It was against the law. No other party did this. Only the Conservatives. The party had to declare the contributions.

[jdobbin]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. In what way would reporting the money as donations have limited the rest of their campaign? Is there an absolute limit on the amount of money one can raise? Is there an absolutely limit on what one can spend on a campaign - and if so why would this have qualified anyway as it was not spent on the campaign?

Yes, there are limits to what a person can donate. Pierre Kingsley was quite clear about that. And there are reasons why parties declare those contributions.

[Technocrat]

Argus Argus Argus...

you seem to miss the point. The conservatives ran as the 'were the squeaky clean party'... 'well be honest to canadians'... 'we will be accountable for our actions'.

well well well... if they broke the law... they broke the law. Its a black mark on the CPC... they can no longer play the squeaky clean party card. You can't really deny that. Someone in the CPC F'd up... the sooner they come out and admit that the better off they will be. Retroactively trying to CYA by changing the law after the fact is well... not very ethical.

BTW Geoffery my respect level for you has been going up and up lately... just thought i would mention that.

(i wish i had more time to fully participate in these boards... unfortunately... I just don't have the time.)

[gerryhatrick]

This is the nail in the coffin, what distinguishes them from the Liberals now?

Gee, that they're not stealing money from us?

No Liberal MP stole money from us.

And don't think that breaking election finance rules isn't stealing money in a very real sense.

They can change their law, but they still need to face the music for what happened....accident or not. Unless the next trick is to try and make their loophole retroactive!

[gerryhatrick]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. In what way would reporting the money as donations have limited the rest of their campaign? Is there an absolute limit on the amount of money one can raise? Is there an absolutely limit on what one can spend on a campaign - and if so why would this have qualified anyway as it was not spent on the campaign?

There are limits on how much you can contribute, so they would have had 1.7 million less to spend on the campaign, yes.

[Argus]

This is the nail in the coffin, what distinguishes them from the Liberals now?

Gee, that they're not stealing money from us?

No Liberal MP stole money from us.

Total horse shit. Just because it wasn't proven doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Gomery inquiry was pretty clear that the only reason Guite got away with what he was doing was protection from the minister and from the PMO. And the Liberals have yet to tell us which liberal MPs got the extra money from those illegal contributions.

And don't think that breaking election finance rules isn't stealing money in a very real sense.

Explain how not reporting fees paid to attend the convention stole money from Canadians. Explain how, if they had reported that money as contributions, anything would have changed in any way, shape or form.

[Argus]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. In what way would reporting the money as donations have limited the rest of their campaign? Is there an absolute limit on the amount of money one can raise? Is there an absolutely limit on what one can spend on a campaign - and if so why would this have qualified anyway as it was not spent on the campaign?

There are limits on how much you can contribute, so they would have had 1.7 million less to spend on the campaign, yes.

As far as I know there is no limit on the contributions a party can accept. There are individual contribution limits on citizens and corporations, however, but it's not clear this would have made much, if any difference. There is also a limit on election spending, but a party convention clearly would not be included there. Besides, unless I'm mistaken, while the Liberals had to borrow money for their campaign, the Conservatives had lots of money, and still had money at the end - perhaps due to restrictions in spending limits.

[Shakeyhands]

Argus, Its very clear that by not disclosing these contributions the CPC has done something wrong. Doesn't matter how you try to spin this, it was wrong, AND clearly goes against their Accountability Act, trying to change the wording of the act just serves to make the optics worse.

If they keep this sort of stuff up, they will be a very short lived government.

[jdobbin]

Argus, Its very clear that by not disclosing these contributions the CPC has done something wrong. Doesn't matter how you try to spin this, it was wrong, AND clearly goes against their Accountability Act, trying to change the wording of the act just serves to make the optics worse.

If they keep this sort of stuff up, they will be a very short lived government.

If the Liberals had done this and tried to explain it away, he would have gone purple with rage.

It was against the law.

[Mimas]

Gee, that they're not stealing money from us? That we have no evidence of huge, billion dollar contracts going to their friends for crap we don't want or need?

Ya, they just bought $10 billion worth of military equipment most of it from former employers of the Minister of Defense.

This is a non-issue. I see nothing wrong with altering the proposed law to allow members to pay for a convention, as described. It affets nothing, I can see, and will benefit no party more than any other.

It is an issue because when they hid the money from the convention, that was illegal. Parties who run the country are supposed to report where and how they get their funding. Because this gives private interests the opportunity to get favours against their contributions. I bet you don't want the NDP to get a billion bucks from unions (or their members) and not report it. Do you?

[Mimas]

Total horse shit. Just because it wasn't proven doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Gomery inquiry was pretty clear that the only reason Guite got away with what he was doing was protection from the minister and from the PMO. And the Liberals have yet to tell us which liberal MPs got the extra money from those illegal contributions.

When several executives of a corporation steal from the corporation that doesn't mean that everyone in the corporation is a thief and that the corporation is ripping off its shareholders.

Besides the highest estimate of misuse of money in Sponsorship scandal says that it cost you $3 over 10 years -that's 30 cents per year, so it's time to stop crying about your 30 cents.

The giving out of military contracts to friends of the Conservatives will cost you $1000. Why aren't you complaining about that?

[geoffrey]

BTW Geoffery my respect level for you has been going up and up lately... just thought i would mention that.

Well thanks, but my views haven't really changed much at all, just one party apparently no longer represents them.

Total horse shit. Just because it wasn't proven doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Gomery inquiry was pretty clear that the only reason Guite got away with what he was doing was protection from the minister and from the PMO. And the Liberals have yet to tell us which liberal MPs got the extra money from those illegal contributions.

Like OJ?

I tend to agree with you Argus, there is little doubt in my mind that the party and individual Liberals got big kickbacks from that scheme. But whether or not Liberals got kickbacks is really not the issue here, is it?

Did the Conservatives break their own law? Yes. Are they ammending it now that they've broke it? Yes.

Do you not see a major issue there? Your not going to be to pull the 'Liberals are worse' because I'm not a Liberal supporter, address the issue on the CPC's terms, what they've done. And it ain't pretty.

I'm starting to get the impression that the Conservatives had all these great ideas and then hit a roadblock called reality.

[normanchateau]

I'm starting to get the impression that the Conservatives had all these great ideas and then hit a roadblock called reality.

Reality? Hypocricy is a more accurate descriptor. Harper did not need to make the Fortier and Emerson cabinet appointments as his first act in office.