Tories fess up

[hiti]

OTTAWA (CP) - After months of heated denials, the federal Conservative party has quietly admitted it failed to publicly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations.

In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses." The report does not explain what constitutes other revenue or other expenses.

Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates.

But while the Tories infer that counting delegate fees as donations is a recent development, Elections Canada has said that's been the case for decades.

The Canadian Alliance, Reform and Progressive Conservative parties - the precursors to the Conservative party - all considered convention fees donations.

Mark Holland said the financial report also leaves some important questions unanswered. For instance, it doesn't mention the fact that the registration form for the convention invited outside observers - generally lobbyists and representatives of professional groups - to use their corporate credit cards to pay the $750 observer fee. The Liberal party maintains such payments constitute corporate donations, which are strictly prohibited.

When The Canadian Press first reported Baird's comments and the apparent breach of the law, Tory officials angrily insisted they'd "fully complied" with the law and that delegate fees could only be considered donations if the convention turned a profit.

The Tories persisted in this argument even after Elections Canada officials made it clear that profit had nothing to do with it and that the Tory interpretation of the law was incorrect.

"I can fax you scads of material on this. This is the way it's been done for time immemorial," Conservative party legal counsel, Paul Lepsoe, told CP last summer.

Holland said much of the Tories' mishandling of their 2005 convention fees appears to be the product of "complete ignorance" of the law.

"To me, that's just as scary (as deliberately breaking the law). I mean, we have a Treasury Board president who doesn't even understand the laws he's attempting to rewrite. I mean, it's astounding. It's breathtaking."

See Link

So even when the Conservatives break the law they insist that they are right and even try to change the law to accommodate their lawlessness. Trying to slip in corporate donations as well.

And then to sit on this file until this time of year when people are busy with family in the hopes that nobody will notice. Unbelievable.

And of course none of the Harper supporters here choose to post this info here. What was that cry from the Tory benches last year? "Be honest and come clean" Of course we will now hear that the CPC saved taxpayers money by breaking the law and not issuing receipts.

[margrace]

Yes it was on at least one news broadcast this morning, thanks for posting it here hiti

[jdobbin]

Many of the right wing say the money wouldn't have changed the election. One thing is certain. It would have changed people's perception of the Tories being competent. It may have even convinced some that they were corrupt.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Many of the right wing say the money wouldn't have changed the election. One thing is certain. It would have changed people's perception of the Tories being competent. It may have even convinced some that they were corrupt.

Yeah, probably not.

A difference in opinion in the way matters are reported is not evidence of corruption.

The only people who would have seen this as corrupt, when looking at the $1.14 million stolen by the Liberals in Adscam are partisan Liberals who are bound to hate the Conservatives no matter what.

Calgarygrit probably said it best.

In their defense, it is impossibly hard for political parties to find a lawyer in their ranks to read over these laws...

[southerncomfort]

The opposition and Harperhaters will pump this for all its worth and blow it out of proportion when in fact it is simply an argument over accounting practices between Elections Canada and the CPC. It is good for drive by smears and attacks but nothing else. Does anyone seriously believe that the rules were DELIBERATELY broken, only the feeble minded and those blinded by hatred will fall for this, but Gomery it is not, not even close.

Are rules retroactive, are other parties being forced to similarly balance previous convention balance sheets, I bet not. Either way, changes have been made and filings revised, case closed.

[jdobbin]

The opposition and Harperhaters will pump this for all its worth and blow it out of proportion when in fact it is simply an argument over accounting practices between Elections Canada and the CPC. It is good for drive by smears and attacks but nothing else. Does anyone seriously believe that the rules were DELIBERATELY broken, only the feeble minded and those blinded by hatred will fall for this, but Gomery it is not, not even close.

Why did they deny all this time if it was an honest mistake? And how did they come to the conclusion it was wrong now?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Why did they deny all this time if it was an honest mistake? And how did they come to the conclusion it was wrong now?

Who knows? Who cares?

Better that than the multitude of Liberals who still try and justify the $1.14 million stolen.

[1967100]

Harper's finished. Get out the boot. Looks like it'll be another 13 years of Liberal dominance.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Harper's finished. Get out the boot. Looks like it'll be another 13 years of Liberal dominance.

What a well-informed and valuable contribution to the discussion.

[Shakeyhands]

Interesting. I'm glad that they have done this, though I suspect its only to further dismantle any skeletons in the lead up to a spring election call. I must say that the more I read and discuss the CPC's economic platform the more intrigued I am. I'm still having an issue with the social aspects and the base that drives this (i.,e here with Betsy, Monty Burns etc.. ) that show a very neo con attitude that mainstream folks wont buy into.

I still am somewhat afraid of what the CPC would do with a majority, as I think the minority status has kept them in the middle of the road (which is also by design I am sure) This whole issue with the monies is intriging nonetheless, why now all of a sudden?

[Saturn]

OTTAWA (CP) - After months of heated denials, the federal Conservative party has quietly admitted it failed to publicly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations.

Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates.

Add to this the fact that as a result of this, Harper and at least 2 other MPs have exceeded the $5,400 donation limit that they "fought hard" to reduce to $1,000.

Having been forced to count convention fees as donations, the report indicates the Conservative party then discovered three delegates — including Harper — had exceeded their $5,400 annual limit for political contributions. As a result, the party refunded $456 each to Harper and the other two delegates.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/27/...-donations.html

[Ricki Bobbi]

Add to this the fact that as a result of this, Harper and at least 2 other MPs have exceeded the $5,400 donation limit that they "fought hard" to reduce to $1,000.

So?

Man the Conservatives can only hope the Liberals try and use this and try to make the next election about corruption.

Conservative corruption = Stephen Harper *donating* $456 too much to the party.

Liberal corruption = $1.14 Million of taxpayer money *diverted* to Liberal party operatives.

Bring it to the table and we'll let the people decide which is worse.

[madmax]

So?

Man the Conservatives can only hope the Liberals try and use this and try to make the next election about corruption.

I agree. This isn't going to be an election issue. People expect parties are cheating the system anyways. If the Liberals try to work on this they will get slammed as their credibility is non existent. Particularly since Adscam is about filling Liberal Election Coffers.

The NDP might squeek about this, but why. It's nothing in the grand scheme of things. I would leave it at

"shame, shame".

In a Hamilton Municipal Election, this was an issue, but the optics and background were different and it stuck to bring down the Incumbent Mayor.

Really the Conservatives, have already proven problems with their credibility over the Emmerson appointment and their bagman to the Senate. These things will also Shame the party, but more reflect Emmerson Personally in BC, and in Quebec, well, see if the party can find a safe seat for this unelected Senator that the CPC needs a cover for.

There is alot of Irony, in the Feel Good Elected Senate talk, and the hypocracy of this political appointment.

The election is going to be some time away and nobodies gonna remember a little party scamming or care since they will be absent of an alternative credible choice in this issue.

But the Emmerson and Senate appointment may or may not come back to life.

[Fortunata]

Ain't it funny that to the Stevie gang any wrongdoing is ok, is overlookable, is an honest mistake but if it were a Liberal, look out!!! That's the way you can tell a partisan. If Steve raised taxes to build himself a Berchtesgaden in the Alberta Rockies, that would be ok; he works hard, he deserves a mountain retreat.

And that's not the only news that the Conservatives tried to hide under the Christmas radar, what about all those patronage appointments hmmmmm? Wasn't there a committee struck to review appointments 'cause Steve wanted to do it different than the Liberals? Oh me oh my, what little difference a change in government really makes.

[Who's Doing What?]

So?

Man the Conservatives can only hope the Liberals try and use this and try to make the next election about corruption.

Conservative corruption = Stephen Harper *donating* $456 too much to the party.

Liberal corruption = $1.14 Million of taxpayer money *diverted* to Liberal party operatives.

Bring it to the table and we'll let the people decide which is worse.

Seriously, wake up!

Did you even read the first post or just come blindly rushing to little Stevie's defense?

In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses." The report does not explain what constitutes other revenue or other expenses.

Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates.

$ 539,915 - Unreported Donations.

$ 913,710 - Other Revenue.

$1,450,000 - Other expenses.

$ 700,000 - Undisclosed Transfers.

$3,603,625

So let's try your statement again.

Conservative corruption = Stephen Harper *donating* $456 too much to the party. $3,603,625 in undisclosed funds.

Liberal corruption = $1.14 Million of taxpayer money *diverted* to Liberal party operatives.

Bring it to the table and we'll let the people decide which is worse.

$1.14M vs. $3.6M

Still want to bring it to the table?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Ain't it funny that to the Stevie gang any wrongdoing is ok, is overlookable, is an honest mistake but if it were a Liberal, look out!!! That's the way you can tell a partisan.

Partisan? Hmmm... Compare the *wrongdoing*. Harper donated $456 over the legal limit to the party. The Liberals stole $1.14 million of taxpayer money that ended up in the hands of party operatives.

Again fight the next election based on ethics and see how well you do!

If Steve raised taxes to build himself a Berchtesgaden in the Alberta Rockies, that would be ok; he works hard, he deserves a mountain retreat.

You are comparing the Prime Minister of Canada to a Nazi? How despicable. Or is it a coincidence the example you used happened to be the name of the town the Nazis misappropriated for themselves in the Bavarian Alps? Sad, and pathetic. Scary, scary, scary isn't going to work and if you had the gumption to use such an accusation directly you would be simply patetic instead of a weak-kneed pathetic chicken.

And that's not the only news that the Conservatives tried to hide under the Christmas radar, what about all those patronage appointments hmmmmm?

What are all these *partonage appointments* to which you refer? I hope it wasn't that pathetic attempt at a hatchet job in Politics Watch. See if there were any credence to your claims you would provide a link, but what are the odds of that...

How much it will pain you when we win a majority in the next election. ba ha ha ha ha

[Who's Doing What?]

Ain't it funny that to the Stevie gang any wrongdoing is ok, is overlookable, is an honest mistake but if it were a Liberal, look out!!! That's the way you can tell a partisan.

Partisan? Hmmm... Compare the *wrongdoing*. Harper donated $456 over the legal limit to the party. The Liberals stole $1.14 million of taxpayer money that ended up in the hands of party operatives.

Again fight the next election based on ethics and see how well you do!

You are terribly misinformed, or simply ingoring the facts. Neither would be surprising.

It's not $456 in excess donations.

It is over $3.6 Million in undisclosed conservative party funds.

3 times the amount you keep harp(er)ing on about the Liberals stealing.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You are terribly misinformed, or simply ingoring the facts. Neither would be surprising.

It's not $456 in excess donations.

It is over $3.6 Million in undisclosed conservative party funds.

There is no accusation that the funds were taxpayer dollars illegallly diverted to the party. Again, fight the next election on this issue.

3 times the amount you keep harp(er)ing on about the Liberals stealing.

Are you a member of Mensa with such a witty pun?

The accounting errors are not fraudulent.

The Conservatives dealt with elections Canada and the reporting errors will be rectified. The Liberals stonewalled over Gomery and the inquiry cost taxpayers $80 million.

Again, feel free to make this an issue in the next election. That just opens the door to a look at Adscam and all the Liberal corruption. The Liberals win hands down as the more dishonest government.

[Fortunata]

You are comparing the Prime Minister of Canada to a Nazi?

No, I'm using the worst example I could think of for what apologists would justify for Steve and his merry band of conservatives.

What are all these *partonage appointments* to which you refer?

Tories sneak friendly appointments under holiday radar

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...06a16b6&k=28765

How much it will pain you when we win a majority in the next election. ba ha ha ha ha

We'll see if that happens. How much crow will you have to eat if he doesn't? Bwah ha ha ha

[Who's Doing What?]

There is no accusation that the funds were taxpayer dollars illegallly diverted to the party. Again, fight the next election on this issue.

No just a political party doing what would be the equvalent of tax evasion if a private citizen were to try the same.

Are you a member of Mensa with such a witty pun?

No I'm a few points shy of mensa, but I am impressed you even know of them. Do you want a hero cookie?

The accounting errors are not fraudulent.

No not fraudulent, just a different interpretation of the laws regarding donations. I'll try that if I'm ever audited for hiding millions in income.

The Conservatives dealt with elections Canada and the reporting errors will be rectified. The Liberals stonewalled over Gomery and the inquiry cost taxpayers $80 million.

So fighting over 2005 income until days before 2007 is not stonewalling?

How much did the fight with elections canada cost taxpayers? This thing goes both ways. For you to sit there and say the Liberals did this and that, and here's why when the conservatives pull the same BS it's different, is a freaking joke.

Again, feel free to make this an issue in the next election. That just opens the door to a look at Adscam and all the Liberal corruption. The Liberals win hands down as the more dishonest government.

Well when the CPC ran on the corruption of the Liberals and how they were different, I think this will make an excellent issue in the next election. It goes to show the CPC is just as corrupt and immoral as the Libs are/were.

[madmax]

Tories sneak friendly appointments under holiday radar

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...06a16b6&k=28765

We'll see if that happens. How much crow will you have to eat if he doesn't? Bwah ha ha ha

This isn't going to be an issue. Its like the Hotel in Shawinigan. It is just a start, but nothing happened then. Its like the HRDC boondoggle, but nothing happened then, It's like the gun registry boondoggle, but nothing happened. It isn't like ADSCAM when all this corruption finally caught up with the Liberals. Same is true with Mulroney and patronage appointments. He fought an election against them, then became an expert on them.

It took another term of corruption and greed, to having the party reduced to going to work in a corvette. The Liberals should have been punished to the same degree.

Fact is, there isn't any Liberal Credibility. There isn't any alternative to these hypocritic acts by the CPC. They can get away with playing politics the way the Liberals, and Mulroney conservatives did, because they can.

Just because the CPC are moving very quickly into areas of Largess that Liberals used to dominate, is no reason for anyone to vote liberal.

What's on offer?

Nothing.

So the CPC are going to be corrupt or disingenious.

So what?

[Saturn]

The accounting errors are not fraudulent.

The Conservatives dealt with elections Canada and the reporting errors will be rectified.

These are not accounting errors - unless the CPC accounting is done by plumbers. Since it isn't done by plumbers, this is a clear effort to circumvent party funding laws, which face it - makes the Conservatives look like crooks. There is no excuse for breaking the law and then making up ridiculous excuses for it.

[Ricki Bobbi]

No just a political party doing what would be the equvalent of tax evasion if a private citizen were to try the same.

No it wouldn't be. Tax cases take years to settle. That it has been settled within a fiscal year of the filing deadline.

No I'm a few points shy of mensa,

That truth is evident in the quality of your posts.

No not fraudulent, just a different interpretation of the laws regarding donations. I'll try that if I'm ever audited for hiding millions in income.

Try it if you are ever audited for any reason. Varying interpretations of tax statutes are a valid argument used by Canadians from all walks of life on a daily basis when dealing with the CRA.

So fighting over 2005 income until days before 2007 is not stonewalling?

The matter was dealt with and a resolution achieved within 12 months. No sir that is not stonewalling. Sounds like you have never dealt with Elections Canada before...

How much did the fight with elections canada cost taxpayers? This thing goes both ways. For you to sit there and say the Liberals did this and that, and here's why when the conservatives pull the same BS it's different, is a freaking joke.

Guaranteed it cost less than $1 million. If you really think this is *the same BS* as Adscam than you are sadly out of touch.

Well when the CPC ran on the corruption of the Liberals and how they were different, I think this will make an excellent issue in the next election. It goes to show the CPC is just as corrupt and immoral as the Libs are/were.

Ahh, if only you had any power in the Liberal Party of Canada. No, this won't be an issue in the next election. Reasonable people comparing this to Adscam would definitely consider Adscam could only come to one conclusion. Adscam was disgusting theft. How many lawyers, never mind average Canadians, really know the Elections Act well to come up with a fair interpretation of this case?

Thousands of dollars of taxpayer dollars in manilla envelopes handed to Liberal Party operatives for work never performed v. questions about the way in which party donations were reported to Elections Canada.

The Conservative elections Canada issue was resolved within 12 months through the normal channels available to any Canadian citizen. The Liberal corruption went on for years and took an $80 Million judicial inquiry before the Liberals would admit to any wrongdoing.

Yup braniac, bring it on. What a great strategist you would make.

[Argus]

Why did they deny all this time if it was an honest mistake? And how did they come to the conclusion it was wrong now?

Uh, they never denied it. In fact, no one even knew about it until John Baird told everyone in an interview. This was when the Liberals were whining about the donation limits being so low people wouldn't be able to afford the $1000 fees for their upcoming convention. Baird said that such things were not considered donations, and that the Tories didn't count them as donations either.

THAT is the only way anyone even knew about this.

So much for them denying anything.

[Argus]

Ain't it funny that to the Stevie gang any wrongdoing is ok, is overlookable, is an honest mistake but if it were a Liberal, look out!!! That's the way you can tell a partisan. If Steve raised taxes to build himself a Berchtesgaden in the Alberta Rockies, that would be ok; he works hard, he deserves a mountain retreat.

This was not a case of stealing taxpayer dollars - as in Jean Chretien funding an extra road to his home in shawinigan, for example, or building fountains or museums there at our expense, or stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the taxpayers to line his own pocket, as he did with the BDB loan (never repaid) to his business partner - which ultimately wound up in his bank account.

And that's not the only news that the Conservatives tried to hide under the Christmas radar,

This was never hidden. The only reason anyone knows about it is Baird told them in a media interview.

what about all those patronage appointments hmmmmm? Wasn't there a committee struck to review appointments 'cause Steve wanted to do it different than the Liberals? Oh me oh my, what little difference a change in government really makes.

There are a lot of things the Tories wanted to do which they haven't been able to because it requires the legislation go through parliament - controlled by the opposition, and because a minority government is to inherently unstable for him to risk controverial new programs and policies.