Tories fess up

[Ricki Bobbi]

If you don't like speaking Canadian on a Canadian forum please feel free to join an American speaking forum.

What's with the hate-on for jbg?

[Fortunata]

Not a hate-on. I find him pretentious and phony. He doesn't come across to me as honest or sincere.

[Argus]

You are quite correct in your assesment saturn, just because they they told everyone they were trying to scam their donations they think somehow they are not scamming? And here they are even telling a lie with insisting they told so they couldn't have been scammming. That is hilarious, for a year they insisted they did nothing wrong, now of course they have had to admit to it finally. Even though they are trying hard not too.

Do you speak English?

No, he speaks Canadian. Different spelling and grammar rules apply.

I'd just be happy if SOME sort of grammar rules applied.

[Argus]

You are quite correct in your assesment saturn, just because they they told everyone they were trying to scam their donations they think somehow they are not scamming? And here they are even telling a lie with insisting they told so they couldn't have been scammming. That is hilarious, for a year they insisted they did nothing wrong, now of course they have had to admit to it finally. Even though they are trying hard not too.

Do you speak English?

No, he speaks Canadian. Different spelling and grammar rules apply.

If you don't like speaking Canadian on a Canadian forum please feel free to join an American speaking forum.

The rules of grammar are fairly clear in both Canadian and American English. I don't care which you use, but if you want your opinion to be respected by those of us who have an education you might consider at least a refresher course in one or the other. Your writing style comes across as a flustered, angry seventh grader who flunked basic grammar, and your word choices often seem wildly out of place with common usage.

[Argus]

And I find it telling that people come on here and expect their opinions to be respected when their writing is filled with grammatical and spelling errors. Either they're not literate enough to write properly or they're too lazy to write properly. Both reflect on the value strangers should place on their opinions.

I'll remember to jump all over you the next typo I see. Totally lame. You think a person has to be perfect gramatically to have a valid idea or point of view. Get Real!

I'm not speaking of a typo. Typos are quite understandable in a forum such as this. I'm speaking of a consistent pattern of confused and fragmented sentences, lack of punctuation and silly word choices. All of which indicates, to the casual reader who does not know the author, a lack of education. Perhaps this is untrue, but it is the impression you leave.

[jbg]

If you don't like speaking Canadian on a Canadian forum please feel free to join an American speaking forum.

To the contrary, I was defending his spelling and grammar. Two countries = two languages (or hundreds, in a multicultural country).

[Who's Doing What?]

I'm not speaking of a typo. Typos are quite understandable in a forum such as this. I'm speaking of a consistent pattern of confused and fragmented sentences, lack of punctuation and silly word choices. All of which indicates, to the casual reader who does not know the author, a lack of education. Perhaps this is untrue, but it is the impression you leave.

Bull****!!!!

It was precisely a typo you started to criticize me on.

This is just it. There really is no difference between the two parties, except one of them just ran on an election platform of accoutnability and ethics.

I find it ironic you can't even spell accountability.

Certainly you can't recognize it or understand it.

It was a simple typo and you jumped all over it. Don't backtrack and play innocent now.

[scribblet]

The Canadian Alliance, Reform and Progressive Conservative parties all considered convention fees donations.

This is a recent development, they have always considered fees a donation, this is a problem that Kingsley has recently come up (he's resigned now btw). This is not a simple case of illegal donations as some would wish it to be and present it as.

"However, we have recently been advised that Elections Canada takes the position that the amount of a convention fee paid by a delegate, less the value of certain 'tangible benefits' received such as meals, are to be treated as a political contribution by that delegate.''

The Liberal MSM is all over Harper for a minor infraction , a difference in accounting practices. Meanwile why are they not talking about family loans that financed the Liberal leadership debate.

Not to mention that no tax receipts were issued so in fact the taxpayers were actually saved money. Somewhat different to the Adscam, where hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was funneled to the party,and laundered, then discovered by the A.G. Whereas the CPC revealed this voluntarily and has admited to a disagreement with Elections Canada - and - will abide by the law if they lose the argument.

[Catchme]

And I find it telling that people come on here and expect their opinions to be respected when their writing is filled with grammatical and spelling errors. Either they're not literate enough to write properly or they're too lazy to write properly. Both reflect on the value strangers should place on their opinions.

I'll remember to jump all over you the next typo I see. Totally lame. You think a person has to be perfect gramatically to have a valid idea or point of view. Get Real!

I'm not speaking of a typo. Typos are quite understandable in a forum such as this. I'm speaking of a consistent pattern of confused and fragmented sentences, lack of punctuation and silly word choices. All of which indicates, to the casual reader who does not know the author, a lack of education. Perhaps this is untrue, but it is the impression you leave.

Pardon me? Those that do not have university grammer and punctuation have no right to have a say, you say? And one's choice of words, as opposed to anothers, is never something that should be discussed.

This type of commentary is simple deflection away from topic, plus it is extremely condescending and an attempt at belittling those who may not be grammeriffic.

Indeed it could discourage people from posting out of fear of being ridiculed. I suggest that discerning people will just ignore those that use these types silencing and propaganda tools. Those that belittle others deserve no consideration. I know I refuse to be silenced because I am not grammeriffic.

Or perhaps on the other hand some people just find long rationals thoughts confusing.

The bottom line of this topic is the CPC tried to scam convention fees, even though there was a history, in all parties that now comprise the CPC, of conventions fees being donations to the party.

Main Entry: 1scam

Pronunciation: 'skam

Function: noun

Etymology: origin unknown

: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scam

[Fortunata]

Somewhat different to the Adscam, where hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was funneled to the party,and laundered, then discovered by the A.G.

This isn't adscam. This is their own scam; the CPC name is new but the players are old. Organizers either were aware of the existing rules and thought they could get away with it or they were completely incompetent by not doing their research.

And I love the rationale for all things CPC ... the Liberals. I may be corrupt but not as corrupt as "the Liberals." Is corrupt not corrupt because it wasn't as corrupt? Is being a little dishonest not really dishonest because you believe someone was more dishonest?

[Ricki Bobbi]

This isn't adscam. This is their own scam; the CPC name is new but the players are old. Organizers either were aware of the existing rules and thought they could get away with it or they were completely incompetent by not doing their research.

Is it really that black and white? The rules changed within a year of the convention.

Are you competent enough to interpret elections Canada law? I haven't heard one of the Harper-haters out there answer that question.

And I love the rationale for all things CPC ... the Liberals. I may be corrupt but not as corrupt as "the Liberals." Is corrupt not corrupt because it wasn't as corrupt? Is being a little dishonest not really dishonest because you believe someone was more dishonest?

The made an error in reporting financing laws that they admitted to and rectified within a year of filing the original return. They have corrected their error. No taxpayer money was involved in the error. No charges are being pressed. No one will go to jail.

The Liberals stonewalled for more than five years. Leading to the need to call an $80 million judicial inquiry to uncover $1.14 million in taxpayer money illegally diverted to party organizers. Party organizers have gone to jail over this.

The Conservatives didn't cover up for years over this. They didn't knowingly break any laws - according to the finds of Elections Canada.

You may somehow see the two as equal.

If the Liberals wanted to wage a campaign on this one issue in comparison to their malfeasance the Conservatives would do it in an instant.

Yes the *volunteer* organizers made mistakes. Do I believe it was a concerted effort to illegally skirt the Elections Act? No. Why not? Because they could have dragged this out for years, and definitely past the next election.

Fortunata here are two questions for you. Let's pretend the original errors were the same in the CPC Elections ad case and Adscam. Is that were culpability ends? Should the CPC be equally as guiltily even though they handled their malfeasance in a faster, and at far less expense to the taxpayers, than the Liberals did with Adscam?

Fine, the *volunteers* were incompetent. Can't fire them. Can't afford to hire people to do the work due to the limitations of the Elections Act. What do you do? Divert taxpayer money to ensure you get the highest quality volunteers?

[scribblet]

Somewhat different to the Adscam, where hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was funneled to the party,and laundered, then discovered by the A.G.

This isn't adscam. This is their own scam; the CPC name is new but the players are old. Organizers either were aware of the existing rules and thought they could get away with it or they were completely incompetent by not doing their research.

And I love the rationale for all things CPC ... the Liberals. I may be corrupt but not as corrupt as "the Liberals." Is corrupt not corrupt because it wasn't as corrupt? Is being a little dishonest not really dishonest because you believe someone was more dishonest?

There is no scam. The party as it has always done, considered the fee for convention attendance as just that--a means of covering the cost of the convention. No one was issued a receipt for a donation for tax purposes for their amount of fee. the problem is simply one of accounting.

Whereas, the recent Liberal convention gave a tax receipt for the large convention fees, so it is considered a donation to the party--BUT it means that those who attended get a kick back in the form of a tax benefit for supporting a political party. Big difference, one which is blown entirely out of proportion, obviously by Liberals who seek to gain from any smears they can get away with.

[Ricki Bobbi]

There is no scam. The party as it has always done, considered the fee for convention attendance as just that--a means of covering the cost of the convention. No one was issued a receipt for a donation for tax purposes for their amount of fee. the problem is simply one of accounting.

Whereas, the recent Liberal convention gave a tax receipt for the large convention fees, so it is considered a donation to the party--BUT it means that those who attended get a kick back in the form of a tax benefit for supporting a political party. Big difference, one which is blown entirely out of proportion, obviously by Liberals who seek to gain from any smears they can get away with.

Good post.

The key is only part of the convention fees are tax deductible.

IIRC the fees for the just past Liberal leadership convention were higher than the donation limit for a year.

[Catchme]

Somewhat different to the Adscam, where hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was funneled to the party,and laundered, then discovered by the A.G.

This isn't adscam. This is their own scam; the CPC name is new but the players are old. Organizers either were aware of the existing rules and thought they could get away with it or they were completely incompetent by not doing their research.

And I love the rationale for all things CPC ... the Liberals. I may be corrupt but not as corrupt as "the Liberals." Is corrupt not corrupt because it wasn't as corrupt? Is being a little dishonest not really dishonest because you believe someone was more dishonest?

I know I do love the IRrational too, it is 100% on the entertainment scale. The twisting defies belief. I remember all the discussion regarding the delegates wanting their receipts from the convention and being told no and how they were going to Elections Canada to report the failure and to demand them from the CPC.

I find even more intesting is the repeated avoidance of mentioning the corporate sponsorship of the convention that was not reported either. 3.5 million worth of scams so far.

Someone should create a metered web site to keep track.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I know I do love the IRrational too, it is 100% on the entertainment scale. The twisting defies belief. I remember all the discussion regarding the delegates wanting their receipts from the convention and being told no and how they were going to Elections Canada to report the failure and to demand them from the CPC.

I find even more intesting is the repeated avoidance of mentioning the corporate sponsorship of the convention that was not reported either. 3.5 million worth of scams so far.

Someone should create a metered web site to keep track.

You should create a Web site.

But that would require providing evidence and support.

Instead you spread your false *memories* on a message board. Much easier for you to say someone should ....

[scribblet]

This isn't adscam. This is their own scam; the CPC name is new but the players are old. Organizers either were aware of the existing rules and thought they could get away with it or they were completely incompetent by not doing their research.

And I love the rationale for all things CPC ... the Liberals. I may be corrupt but not as corrupt as "the

I find even more intesting is the repeated avoidance of mentioning the corporate sponsorship of the convention that was not reported either. 3.5 million worth of scams so far.

Someone should create a metered web site to keep track.

There were no corporate sponsorship donations; it is the Liberals who are maintaining that the convention payments paid by outside observers constitute corporate donations. If you know of something else please provide a source.

Interesting isn't it that it is the Liberals like to deduct their convention fees for a tax deduction,fleecing the taxpayer, while the CPC method cost the taxpayer nothing. A revised accounting practice of course now means that the fees will become political contributions and will cost the taxpayer.

[Who's Doing What?]

There were no corporate sponsorship donations; it is the Liberals who are maintaining that the convention payments paid by outside observers constitute corporate donations. If you know of something else please provide a source.

There were corporate credit cards used.

Interesting isn't it that it is the Liberals like to deduct their convention fees for a tax deduction,fleecing the taxpayer, while the CPC method cost the taxpayer nothing. A revised accounting practice of course now means that the fees will become political contributions and will cost the taxpayer.

I am much more concerned about a party trying to hide 3.5 million in funding, than I am in the money saved from a tax rebate.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I am much more concerned about a party trying to hide 3.5 million in funding, than I am in the money saved from a tax rebate.

Again, a big chunk of that was misreported as Electoral District Association funds as opposed to Party Head Office funds.

Do explain how that is trying to *hide* anything?

These funds wouldn't have been *found* so quickly if they hadn't been reported at all...

[Who's Doing What?]

I am much more concerned about a party trying to hide 3.5 million in funding, than I am in the money saved from a tax rebate.

Again, a big chunk of that was misreported as Electoral District Association funds as opposed to Party Head Office funds.

Do explain how that is trying to *hide* anything?

These funds wouldn't have been *found* so quickly if they hadn't been reported at all...

I already showed you once it was UNreported not misreported. Don't make me embarass you again.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I already showed you once it was UNreported not misreported. Don't make me embarass you again.

Yeah, whatever ....

What you showed is the original filing didn't report the funds correctly.

The party wasn't audited by Elections Canada.

Elections Canada didn't hire a magician?

Was that last line an attempt to raise the level of the debate here on MLW?

[Who's Doing What?]

disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations

So they freely admit it was unreported. Again you are proven wrong.

Just for kicks:

Disclose - to make something known publicly, or to show something that was hidden

[hiti]

Is it really that black and white? The rules changed within a year of the convention.

Are you competent enough to interpret elections Canada law? I haven't heard one of the Harper-haters out there answer that question.

The made an error in reporting financing laws that they admitted to and rectified within a year of filing the original return. They have corrected their error. No taxpayer money was involved in the error. No charges are being pressed. No one will go to jail.

The Liberals stonewalled for more than five years. Leading to the need to call an $80 million judicial inquiry to uncover $1.14 million in taxpayer money illegally diverted to party organizers. Party organizers have gone to jail over this.

The Conservatives didn't cover up for years over this. They didn't knowingly break any laws - according to the finds of Elections Canada.

I feel embarrassed for you while reading your posts. You must also be strained by all the twisting you are doing to excuse what the CPC did.... refusing to give receipts to members for convention dues, accepting corporate credit cards for fees which became corporate donations, cooking the books to hide 3.4 million $$$$. all of which are illegal, and then fighting Elections Canada for the better part of 2006 with denials, excuses. They refused to hand over their books and critical documents regarding the irregularities in donation/convention fees. And finally after it seems they uncooked their books and when the public was involved with family and Christmas, the CPC turns over their rewritten, revised books to Elections Canada (I'm sure they only handed over some sheets with whatever they thought made them look good) and a day later the head of Elections Canada resigns. I think Sheila should be able to go through all political parties books, especially the CPC. The Liberals had an audit firm audit their party books in 2005.

When CPC refused to give tax receipts for convention fees, some party members were making donations to their riding associations in return for tax receipts. This was called cheque-swapping" That accounts for the "redirected" amounts. According to the Vancouver Sun... Here's how cheque-swapping worked: Individual riding associations footed the bill for their delegates for food, travel, hotel and registration fees associated with the Montreal convention.

In exchange, the conventioneer would make a donation back to the riding association in the same amount.

That would entitle the delegate to a tax receipt for the donation, amounting to an unwarranted benefit from taxpayers -- that is, reimbursement of a portion of their 'donation' through the tax system.

But the donation wasn't a donation in the true sense of the word. Elections Canada has ruled that anyone receiving something that has a commercial value beyond its political value is not eligible for a tax receipt.

Meals, hotel and airfare clearly have commercial value and cannot be construed as a political donation. -end quote

The Libs and NDP quit Cheque-Swapping when the Law changed in 2004- The Tories didn't.... So now do these CPC members have two tax receipts? One from their riding for cheque-swapping and another from the CPC head office from the "redirected" funds? Steve broke the law to win an election and now he's committing fraud to cover it up.

And another thing, in 2004 CPC spent $700,000 in polling and in 2005 nothing was spent on polling. Can anyone believe that? Also a number of CPC EDA's did not file their books to Elections Canada for 2004 and 2005.

[Saturn]

And another thing, in 2004 CPC spent $700,000 in polling and in 2005 nothing was spent on polling. Can anyone believe that? Also a number of CPC EDA's did not file their books to Elections Canada for 2004 and 2005.

And guess how much they are going to spend on polling in 2006 given that they backtracked on their promise to disclose what polling the government does?

[hiti]

And another thing, in 2004 CPC spent $700,000 in polling and in 2005 nothing was spent on polling. Can anyone believe that? Also a number of CPC EDA's did not file their books to Elections Canada for 2004 and 2005.

And guess how much they are going to spend on polling in 2006 given that they backtracked on their promise to disclose what polling the government does?

That would be government money.... our tax $$$

And where did they hide the amounts spent on polling in 2005? Or was the money taken and used from funds received as the Opposition??? Polling for party with taxpayers money. What a concept.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I feel embarrassed for you while reading your posts. You must also be strained by all the twisting you are doing to excuse what the CPC did....

There is no need for personal insults and attacks.

You must also be strained by all the twisting you are doing to excuse what the CPC did.... cooking the books to hide 3.4 million $$$$.

And finally after it seems they uncooked their books and when the public was involved with family and Christmas, the CPC turns over their rewritten, revised books to Elections Canada (I'm sure they only handed over some sheets with whatever they thought made them look good) and a day later the head of Elections Canada resigns.

So it couldn't be a simple mistake or difference of opinion.

It had to be nefarious.

No proof for that. All you can provide is that they *cooked* and *uncooked* the books.

How are you sure of what they handed over?