Tories fess up

[Argus]

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?

Are you seriously trying to equate completely legal donations which were not declared - to no affect to the taxpayer - to hundreds of millions of dollars misappropriated and given to companies which then kicked back millions to the Liberal party of Canada?

[Ricki Bobbi]

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.

A clear effort to circumvent party funding laws?

Do explain that.

No law was broken. The Conservatives returns weren't finalized. Now they have been.

Sad, sad, twisting the facts.

Try running on ethics Mr. Dion .... puhlease.

[Shakeyhands]

That truth is evident in the quality of your posts.

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

I sure did miss all the personal attacks while you had your month off RB...

Lay off the attacks, the board is much more civilized when you aren't here.

[jdobbin]

So much for them denying anything.

They did deny it. And the information would have come up regardless when the Elections Canada looked at the financing of the convention as they do with all conventions.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...5acc1c6&k=46858

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

[Ricki Bobbi]

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Nothing will come of it. Everything has been dealt with.

[Argus]

So much for them denying anything.

They did deny it. And the information would have come up regardless when the Elections Canada looked at the financing of the convention as they do with all conventions.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...5acc1c6&k=46858

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

From your own cite: Pat Martin has sent a complaint to Raymond Landry in the wake of comments by Treasury Board President John Baird that the Conservative party didn't report delegate fees at its last convention as donations or issue tax receipts for them.

As I said, they never denied anything. They were the ones who talked about the donations not being part of party donations in the first place. They simply interpreted the rules differently, and were quite open about their belief.

[Ricki Bobbi]

As I said, they never denied anything. They were the ones who talked about the donations not being part of party donations in the first place. They simply interpreted the rules differently, and were quite open about their belief.

Argus, good work. Pointing out the falsehoods, fallacies and weakness of the evidence provided by the Harper haters.

[jdobbin]

From your own cite: Pat Martin has sent a complaint to Raymond Landry in the wake of comments by Treasury Board President John Baird that the Conservative party didn't report delegate fees at its last convention as donations or issue tax receipts for them.

As I said, they never denied anything. They were the ones who talked about the donations not being part of party donations in the first place. They simply interpreted the rules differently, and were quite open about their belief.

They denied right away that they had done anything wrong and kept denying right up to this week.

[Ricki Bobbi]

They denied right away that they had done anything wrong and kept denying right up to this week.

Why quote things if you aren't going to read them?

[Fortunata]

After 17 years as head of Elections Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley announced today that he will step down from the post in the new year.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStorie...showbyline=True

Coincidence you say?

[Saturn]

After 17 years as head of Elections Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley announced today that he will step down from the post in the new year.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStorie...showbyline=True

Coincidence you say?

Of course.

Kingsley also leaves office after Elections Canada was involved in a spat with the Conservative party over whether it broke the law with donations to its 2005 national convention.

The party, just days ago, admitted it failed to publicly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations. At least three party members, including the prime minister, donated more than the legal annual limit of $5,400 for political contributions.

The turnabout came after the Liberal party filed an official complaint with Elections Canada in a dispute with the Conservatives over the status of political convention fees during parliamentary hearings into Harper's Public Accountability Act.

Last June, Kingsley waded into the dispute, challenging the Conservatives to hand over its convention books for an audit.

[Saturn]

From your own cite: Pat Martin has sent a complaint to Raymond Landry in the wake of comments by Treasury Board President John Baird that the Conservative party didn't report delegate fees at its last convention as donations or issue tax receipts for them.

As I said, they never denied anything. They were the ones who talked about the donations not being part of party donations in the first place. They simply interpreted the rules differently, and were quite open about their belief.

John Baird simply couldn't keep his big shouting mouth closed and accidentally spit it out in Parliament to the astonishment of all (not realizing that he was supposed to keep mum about it). The denials came after he realized that he had spilled the beans.

[Ricki Bobbi]

John Baird simply couldn't keep his big shouting mouth closed and accidentally spit it out in Parliament to the astonishment of all (not realizing that he was supposed to keep mum about it). The denials came after he realized that he had spilled the beans.

So John Baird was up front and didn't try and hide the issue with Elections Canada ... because he wasn't following the Conservatives secret cover up plan?

Tin foil hat wearers unite!

[geoffrey]

Introducing an act and then scaling it back once you found you broke your own rules is a little bit on the unaccountable side in my opinion. I'm not impressed.

[Who's Doing What?]

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

Um Try Tax cases can take years to settle. Every Tax issue I've ever had was settled within 8 months.

That truth is evident in the quality of your posts.

Why thank you. Since english was always my worst subject I didn't realise it shone through.

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.

Still doesn't make me right. Just like the Conservatives aren't right. They got caught trying to cheat, plain and simple.

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...

And I suppose you deal with them on a daily basis. The matter was dealt with because they knew they were caught, and now was a much preferable time to admit it, as opposed to when parliament is back in session and most of the political pundits are not on holidays with their families.

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.

You can't guarantee squat! You are just pulling numbers out of your ass. Sad but not unexpected.

If you can't see the similarities between this and Adscam, you are blind.

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?

Average Canadians know a cheat and a liar when they see one. Average Canadians will be shown that this current Govt., the one who ran on accountablitity, is just as corrupt and scheming as the Liberals ever were.

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.

No it is about a political party hiding millions in funding, then running a campaign on how corrupt their opponents are.

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.

So it only took the Conservatives less than 12 months to get backed into a corner where they had no option but to admit they were wrong. I guess that makes the Liberals the smarter of the two.

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

Well the Conservatives now have no legs at all to stand on when accountability and coruption comes up. Seeing as how that is what sunk the Liberals last time I think it will make excellent fodder to feed the average Canadian.

[madmax]

I am getting a kick out of the apologists for the CPCs. Hey, just suck it up, its going to be one more thing in a string of broken promises and hypocritical acts. But it ain't going to make a hill of beans difference come election time.

[jdobbin]

Introducing an act and then scaling it back once you found you broke your own rules is a little bit on the unaccountable side in my opinion. I'm not impressed.

And yet Conservatives brush it aside as being nothing.

I'd have been more impressed if they had said immediately that it was a mistake and paid it back. Instead they deny it was against the law and try to change the law they violated.

[Argus]

From your own cite: Pat Martin has sent a complaint to Raymond Landry in the wake of comments by Treasury Board President John Baird that the Conservative party didn't report delegate fees at its last convention as donations or issue tax receipts for them.

As I said, they never denied anything. They were the ones who talked about the donations not being part of party donations in the first place. They simply interpreted the rules differently, and were quite open about their belief.

They denied right away that they had done anything wrong and kept denying right up to this week.

Yes, because it was their belief that convention fees should not be included with political donations. I can see the point, so long as the fees are used to pay for the cost of the convention, as opposed to paying for electioneering.

[Catchme]

Introducing an act and then scaling it back once you found you broke your own rules is a little bit on the unaccountable side in my opinion. I'm not impressed.

And yet Conservatives brush it aside as being nothing.

I'd have been more impressed if they had said immediately that it was a mistake and paid it back. Instead they deny it was against the law and try to change the law they violated.

Yes, the the Con base pushes it aside as if it were nothing, must be pretty hard for them to face the fact the party they supported beat the Liberals in money scams before they even entered office. Or it shows their complete hypocrisy.

Factors on why it is a big deal that they are trying to cover up:

1. Release of the information timing

2. The fact they tried to change the laws they violated

3. The fact they are trying to discount those who are taking exception to the corruption

[Argus]

From your own cite: Pat Martin has sent a complaint to Raymond Landry in the wake of comments by Treasury Board President John Baird that the Conservative party didn't report delegate fees at its last convention as donations or issue tax receipts for them.

As I said, they never denied anything. They were the ones who talked about the donations not being part of party donations in the first place. They simply interpreted the rules differently, and were quite open about their belief.

John Baird simply couldn't keep his big shouting mouth closed and accidentally spit it out in Parliament to the astonishment of all (not realizing that he was supposed to keep mum about it). The denials came after he realized that he had spilled the beans.

The number two man in the government didn't realize this was supposed to be a secret, eh? I guess nobody, er, told him?

Jeez.

[Argus]

Introducing an act and then scaling it back once you found you broke your own rules is a little bit on the unaccountable side in my opinion. I'm not impressed.

You haven't been impressed with anything the tories have done since you lost money on that income trust thing.

The Tories did not plan to have fees for conventions included with political donations. Now the opposition is insisting that this be the case.

Ironically, this will hurt the opposition more than it will the Tories, because the Tories' fund base is far more widespread, while that of the Liberals, NDP and BQ are more centralized, coming in large donations from big business and big labour. But, it's a chance to get shots off at the Tories, and that's all they're thinking about at the moment.

[Saturn]

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

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.

More out-of-this-world completely irrelevant nonsense comments by RB. This is not a tax case, RB, there are no taxes involved and the CRA has nothing to do with it.

[Saturn]

The number two man in the government didn't realize this was supposed to be a secret, eh? I guess nobody, er, told him?

Jeez.

The Treasury Board is not even a department. It's a split off from the Finance Deparment and Baird is not even a Minister. I would hardly call him the number two man in the government - he is not even close. And yes, he is not very experienced or very competent on his issue and he accidentally spilled the beans. That's why Harper wants his cabinet to read from a script and not get sidetracked - they say the wrong things.

[Argus]

If you can't see the similarities between this and Adscam, you are blind.

Perhaps you could point them out to us.

Average Canadians know a cheat and a liar when they see one. Average Canadians will be shown that this current Govt., the one who ran on accountablitity, is just as corrupt and scheming as the Liberals ever were.

Sooo... uhm... because the Tories believed that they didn't have to report convention fees as political donations - perfectly legal fees - the reporting of which would really not have changed much of anything, they're as corrupt as the Liberals who deliberately stole hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayer? With a prime minister who stole hundreds of thousands and put it in his own bank account?

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.

No it is about a political party hiding millions in funding, then running a campaign on how corrupt their opponents are.

This is one of the more bizarre posts I've read since I've been here. Let me see if I get this right.

Fred has extra income, which he got for doing a job for someone. If he reports it, and the expenses that went with that job, it wouldn't really make any difference on his taxes, so he doesn't bother.

Joe puts in place a complicated scheme to embezzle millions of dollars from the government.

To you, Fred is every bit as corrupt as Joe. Is this the essence of your argument?

[Saturn]

The Tories did not plan to have fees for conventions included with political donations. Now the opposition is insisting that this be the case.

Convention fees being included in political donations was the law at the time and for quite some time prior to the CPC convention and the Conservatives did not plan to make any changes to that. Until they realized that the fact they broke the law was out in the open and then figured it would be good for them to change the law.