Tories fess up

[Ricki Bobbi]

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.

Nobody *rational* is accusing the Conservatives of trying to change the law to help themselves in this case.

Quite some time? Hmmm, this was the first Conservative convention under the new rules. So that means the law had been in place for less than a year.

Still much ado about nothing.

[Saturn]

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?

No, silly. Fred got money illegaly and bribed the "someone" to get the job in the first place. The rest of the story is irrelevant because this case has nothing to do with taxes, so stop repeating nonsense about taxes like a broken record.

[Argus]

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.

When they start dealing with mafia figures passing plane brown envelopes full of stolen cash across tables in the back rooms of Italian restaurants you get back to us.

Hey, I wonder if Paul Martin's ships are still smuggling coke.

[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.

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

What I get a kick on is people who have made it perfectly clear they have no problem with open corruption, blatant lies, theft, mismanagement, and the use of federal police to intimidate political opposition suddenly acting aghast because the Tories did the political equivalent of getting a parking ticket.

[Catchme]

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

What I get a kick on is people who have made it perfectly clear they have no problem with open corruption, blatant lies, theft, mismanagement, and the use of federal police to intimidate political opposition suddenly acting aghast because the Tories did the political equivalent of getting a parking ticket.

See, you just gave a perfect example, minimizing the attempted scamming of 3.5 million dollars, 2.1 million more than the Liberals were accused of, into a parking ticket type of offense.

[Argus]

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

What I get a kick on is people who have made it perfectly clear they have no problem with open corruption, blatant lies, theft, mismanagement, and the use of federal police to intimidate political opposition suddenly acting aghast because the Tories did the political equivalent of getting a parking ticket.

See, you just gave a perfect example, minimizing the attempted scamming of 3.5 million dollars, 2.1 million more than the Liberals were accused of, into a parking ticket type of offense.

I'm going to presume that English is a second or third language for you in that you apparently don't understand what the word "scamming" means. I would suggest you find someone to explain the language to you.

[jdobbin]

What I get a kick on is people who have made it perfectly clear they have no problem with open corruption, blatant lies, theft, mismanagement, and the use of federal police to intimidate political opposition suddenly acting aghast because the Tories did the political equivalent of getting a parking ticket.

The more the right wing says this was nothing, the less convincing it sounds.

Had the Conservatives simply said that they mistakenly violated the law and made immediate amends, the easier this would have gone. An entire year has passed with denials that they did anything wrong.

[cybercoma]

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.

Paid it back to who exactly!?

The Liberals STOLE money from the taxpayers gave it to corporations who then kicked-back the money to the Party.

The Conservatives charged a fee to cover the cost of their convention to those who were in attendance.

You see, The Liberals took without asking, The Conservatives gave their members a choice.

Pay the money back...how asinine.

[Catchme]

I'm going to presume that English is a second or third language for you in that you apparently don't understand what the word "scamming" means. I would suggest you find someone to explain the language to you.

Not sure why, all of a sudden, you're trying to deflect topic away from the CPC's scams and onto me, but a most simple propaganda tool such as that is quite obvious, and indeed indicates the lack of position that is held when one makes an equivalency of 3.5 million to a parking tickert.

Nor am I sure what your intent is with saying that English is a 2nd or 3rd language for me. As my use of "attempted scamming" is quite correct. Though your presumption is not.

Scam = Main Entry: 1scam

Pronunciation: 'skam

Function: noun

Etymology: origin unknown

: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation

[Ricki Bobbi]

The more the right wing says this was nothing, the less convincing it sounds.

Had the Conservatives simply said that they mistakenly violated the law and made immediate amends, the easier this would have gone. An entire year has passed with denials that they did anything wrong.

It was nine months not a year.

The error has been corrected.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Probably due to a number of factors.

The Liberals realize how incredibly weak they still are on ethics.

The Liberals have no policy to put forward.

The Liberals just selected an ineffectual uncharismatic leader.

But it isn't in the media anymore. Simply hard-headed partisans left to whine on message boards.

[Catchme]

The more the right wing says this was nothing, the less convincing it sounds.

Yes, you're absolutely correct, and the more vitriolic they are, the more we know they are trying to defend the indefensible.

[jdobbin]

Paid it back to who exactly!?

The Liberals STOLE money from the taxpayers gave it to corporations who then kicked-back the money to the Party.

The Conservatives charged a fee to cover the cost of their convention to those who were in attendance.

You see, The Liberals took without asking, The Conservatives gave their members a choice.

Pay the money back...how asinine.

And that fee was illegal. In fact, fees charged to lobbyists and observers at that convention are also likely to be illegal. A ruling on that will be coming in the next year. The party may be forced to refund that money to contributers.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The more the right wing says this was nothing, the less convincing it sounds.

Yes, you're absolutely correct, and the more vitriolic they are, the more we know they are trying to defend the indefensible.

Hmm, sounds like you are approaching the issue with an open mind.

C'mon Liberals fight the next election on corruption. Please!

(I hope I wasn't being to vitriolic with that )

[watching&waiting]

I just find all this garbage about the CPC trying to hide and get away with something just the usual unethical Liberal type attack. The Liberals would like to paint the CPC as being corrupt, just like the Liberal party is. They know that everyone in Canada equates corruption and Liberals to be the the same. They will not shake that label, so they will try to bring the others down to therir level. You can see the party plants here trying their best to do as much harm as they can. I does not require much time on this site to see who is and is not a party hack. Since the Liberals think that this type of attack will work, I must point out that even though this has been reported in the news and is publically known, no one cares about it. The more the Liberal talk of this the more they will be reminding the people who the corrupt party is.

Here on this site, we see arguments go on forever, and topics like this have died days ago and we still have people arguing about them. That is because we are more politically inclined. The vast majority of the public blew off the 2 minute sound bite on this days ago. It was no biggie. Even the papers are not giving it much play.

We all are guilty of taking our own political views to the extreme here, and we seem to be determined to argue each and every thing to death. We will never see a clear winner and the objects in the arguments will just use the smear tatics before anything can be proven on way or another, and we all know that smear justs ends things in a huff.

The truth is there were funds that were outside the guide lines and have now been accounted for correctly. It was not the kind of things that where you can easily see the error, but one more of definition then anything else. It has been corrected and all the funds have either been returned to those involved, or accounted for in their proper columns. The total of this was 1.4 million and in the actual scheme of things that is not very much. Over donation have been in the nature of $500.00 per occurance, and that money was returned to each person who gave it.

The Liberals on the other hand had 1.5 billion boondogals hust at HDRC, and 100's of millions in other scandels. The Adscam showed where money for work not done was very high, but you also must remember that the Liberal also gave $250,000,000.00 of government contracts to their friends and families. This means that many advertising and printing companies were not given the chance to get even a part of this. That is a scandel that has been over looked. The liberals corruption has been so high that it defies proper accounting. But we all know that it has been well into the 10 of Billions in the 13 years they were in power. Does anyone think that an error of accounting caught and then taken care of, is anywhere nnear what the Liberals have as their baggage? The mysterious loans to Chretiens favorite golf corse was more then 4 times what we are looking at here. While no pone can prove the wrong doing in those loans etc., we all know that it was wrong and it would not be a normal thing for the government to do or be involved in. I could go on and on.

The Liberals have to try and bring the CPC down to their level, because they know there is no way they can pull themselves up to the present level of the CPC. The Liberals will pay dearly in the next election, and I do not think that there will be an election this spring but rather next fall. Too much has to change for the Liberals to even be near able to fight an election. The Bloc and NDP will always be there like yapping chiauhua's trying to nip the ankles, but really not having much power to affect anything. Right now the Liberals enjoy a bump with a new leader but as the poles show that is fading fast, and in the case of an election it may well become a big hole. They know that they need a lot of things to change or they will get decimated in an election. That is why most of the top people you thought would run for leader did not. It does not take much thinking for people to see that. So maybe in the new year we will be a little better at arguing the points of what is going on instead of getting so deep into things that are not that important at all.

[Catchme]

I just find all this garbage about the CPC trying to hide and get away with something just the usual unethical Liberal type attack....The Liberals have to try and bring the CPC down to their level,

I find diverting away from the dishonesty and illegal actions of the CPC to be the usual CPC hypocrisy.

The Liberals, which I am not, did not have to try to bring the CPC down to their level, they , the CPC, did that all by themselves.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The Liberals, which I am not, did not have to try to bring the CPC down to their level, they , the CPC, did that all by themselves.

You believe this issue with Elections Canada is at the same *level* as Adscam?

Is it difficult living in a world that is totally black and white?

[Catchme]

The Liberals, which I am not, did not have to try to bring the CPC down to their level, they , the CPC, did that all by themselves.

You believe this issue with Elections Canada is at the same *level* as Adscam?

Is it difficult living in a world that is totally black and white?

Actually seeing as how it is 2 million more than adscam it is actually more serious, the fact that the CPC tried to cover it, and then tried to change laws so they weren't breaking laws, says even more.

There is no gray area when it comes to political party corruption, there is NO parking ticket kinda stuff as opposed to "other" when we are speaking of millions of dollars, particularily when Harper et al campaigned on "accountability" and ethics. They did not even get elected before they showed their true colours.

Any laughter coming from the CPC sounds a bit panic stricken IMO.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Actually seeing as how it is 2 million more than adscam it is actually more serious, the fact that the CPC tried to cover it, and then tried to change laws so they weren't breaking laws, says even more.

There is no gray area when it comes to political party corruption, there is NO parking ticket kinda stuff as opposed to "other" when we are speaking of millions of dollars, particularily when Harper et al campaigned on "accountability" and ethics. They did not even get elected before they showed their true colours.

Any laughter coming from the CPC sounds a bit panic stricken IMO.

The $1.14 million in Adscam was taxpayer money that was proven in a judicial inquiry to have been illegally diverted to Liberal party operatives. An inquiry that cost $80 million in taxpayer dollars to hold. It was EIGHT YEARS between when the funds were diverted and the inquiry results were

The CPC issue with Elections Canada involved $3 million of donations freely given by Canadian citizens to the CPC and how those donations were reported under the Elections Act. It was EIGHT MONTHS to resolve an issue that involved no misuse of public funds.

You are clearly blinded by something, hatred for the CPC, blind devotion to some faction of the left, who knows?

Am I correct in guessing you have never voted for the CPC and never will?

The next election, as the last two were, will be decided by those open-minded swing voters who choose between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Try as you might, but this story will not resonate.

[Saturn]

An interesting letter from Stephen Harper: http://electionresultscanada.com/nccletter.html

"The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control."

Please excuse my language, but when I learned Elections Canada's bureaucrats have pressed charges against a Canadian citizen, I just blew my cool. That is the exact language I used.

The persecuted citizen I am talking about is one of us. Paul Bryan, Burnaby, B.C., a private software developer. Like you and I, he believes in free enterprise and individual freedom - including freedom of speech at election time.

And unfortunately, because of his principles, Paul is facing prosecution at the hands of Elections Canada, which is seeking fines of up to $25,000.

This is not the first attack on freedom by Elections Canada. Its heavy-handed chief, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, has been an advocate of the most minute of controls and regulations - and stiff punishments - on every aspect of "free" elections. In one particularly bizarre example, its police are investigating a group called the "Edible Ballot Society."

But in prosecuting Paul, Elections Canada is taking the threat to freedom to anew and dangerous level.

What was Paul's crime? He simply posted news on his personal website. And no, it wasn't part of a criminal conspiracy, or luring children toward violent pornography.

It was actually something government officials seem to believe is a lot more dangerous - information.

In fact, this is the first attempt by our government to control the Internet and press charges - just for the sake of controlling information.

What a surprise that Kingsley is "resigning"! Especially since a ruling on the Conservative convention fiasco is expected after he steps down. In addition, the Conservatives are thrilled that they can appoint a new head of Elections Canada for a term that lasts until that appointee turns 65 or resigns. Coincidentally, Kingsley was appointed by Mulroney, not by the Liberals.

It's very rich of Harper to talk about "freedom of speech", and government control of the internet and then firing public employees for refusing to use his favourite political slogan "Canada's New Government" in correspondence and massacring all federal government websites to a point where they are unrecognizable - they look more like advertising billboards plastered with "Canada's New Government" all over while making users dig deeper and deeper for information; information which in many cases has been removed.

It's also very rich of Harper to talk about "free elections" and then taking a full year to release the names of donors in his leadership bid, breaking the Elections Act and then trying to make changes to it to cover up, and selling influence in government to good Conservative supporters.

[Ricki Bobbi]

A five year old letter written by Stephen Harper as a private citizen.

Wow, you guys really are stretching to make an issue out of this one.

[Saturn]

A five year old letter written by Stephen Harper as a private citizen.

Wow, you guys really are stretching to make an issue out of this one.

Not any private citizen but the president of the NCC, a closed-door organization whose primary purpose was to sue Canada and remove limitations placed on private interests in the funding of political campaigns. He spent years trying to establish the legality of government for sale.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Not any private citizen but the president of the NCC, a closed-door organization whose primary purpose was to sue Canada and remove limitations placed on private interests in the funding of political campaigns. He spent years trying to establish the legality of government for sale.

Interesting, yet slanted, view of the NCC's raison d'etre.

Let's look at what they say about themselves.

We are Canada’s largest non-partisan organization for the defence and promotion of free enterprise, free speech and government that is accountable to its taxpayers.

Nothing wrong with that....

[Saturn]

Not any private citizen but the president of the NCC, a closed-door organization whose primary purpose was to sue Canada and remove limitations placed on private interests in the funding of political campaigns. He spent years trying to establish the legality of government for sale.

Interesting, yet slanted, view of the NCC's raison d'etre.

Let's look at what they say about themselves.

We are Canada’s largest non-partisan organization for the defence and promotion of free enterprise, free speech and government that is accountable to its taxpayers.

Nothing wrong with that....

Largest non-partisan organization made up of 4 individuals with a large budget of secretly acquired funds.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Largest non-partisan organization made up of 4 individuals with a large budget of secretly acquired funds.

If it's such a secretive organization how do you know how many people it is made up of? And the size of their budget?

[Saturn]

Largest non-partisan organization made up of 4 individuals with a large budget of secretly acquired funds.

If it's such a secretive organization how do you know how many people it is made up of? And the size of their budget?

Because only 4 people are known/suspected to be part of it - it could of course be more than 4 but that's how many the public is aware of. The size of their budget can be estimated by the amount of their spending - again it could be bigger than we know because we cannot track all their spending. It is difficult to know the facts about organizations that keep everything secret.