While some of my colleagues like Glen McGregor — who, along with Parliament Hill freelancer Tim Naumetz, first reported on what we now know as the in-and-out scheme — dug into the details of the nearly 700 pages of documentation that the Elections Commissioner put in front of a judge last week in order to obtain a search warrant, Elizabeth Thompson, a few desks over from mine, remembered what Tom Flanagan had said about the concept of moving money in from the national campaign to the local campaign and then back out again from the local campaign to the national campaign.
The same quote jumped out at me when I read Flanagan's book last fall.
I blogged a fair bit about Flanagan's book, Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power. If you're covering federal politics I would suggest it's a much more important read than, say, Mulroney's Memoirs or Eddie Goldenberg's How It Works (enjoyable and illuminating as those books were). Flanagan lays out a lot of the core strategy behind some recent and likely future Conservative moves. (And many Conservatives are not exactly grateful to Flanagan for that, I might add.)
And, keeping in mind that one of the defences mounted by Conservative MPs in the House of Commons in the wake of the RCMP raids was that it just wasn't fair, that every party engages in the advertising financing schemes that they did. “The unequal treatment is not justified,” said Government House Leader Peter Van Loan. Really? Well, Mr. Van Loan, meet Mr. Flanagan:
“People expect conservatives to be tough. They believe in the values of self-help, individual responsibility, criminal justice, economic realism, and national interest. They look ridiculous, if they go around snivelling and complaining about fairness every time an opponent takes a shot at them. Political campaigning is a civilized form of civil war. The point is to win the war, not to complain that people are fighting. Leave the whining to the utopians who fantasize about conflict-free societies.”
Technorati Tags: Conservativees, elections
Your continued support, at CTV and Canwest, for the Liberal Party of Canada is greatly appreciated. Lets get on with the election.
Would it be fair to say then, Mr. Akin, that you regard Elections Canada as an “opponent” of the Conservative Party?
. . . No further questions, your honour!
Good luck with the new gig.
Horrors the CPC spent their own money on advertising in the last election. They split those advertising dollars between national and local campaigns. In keeping with how they perceived the rules they applied for a rebate for a portion of those local advertising expenses which is normal practice I gather. EC (Elections Canada) didn't like it and so refused to reimburse those local advertising expenses. Because of this decision the CPC is said to have exceeded the ceiling of $18 million by approx. $1 million. The CPC's position is that EC is wrong and therefore launched a lawsuit to force EC to reimburse the local campaigns. What could happen here? The courts rule in either EC's favour or the CPC. If its in favour of the latter there is no violation of election expenses. If the court rules in favour of the former the CPC party is out the amount being requested for reimbursement and the party is fined for exceeding election spending. That's it in a nutshell folks. To prove criminal activity will be a hard sell and before that happens a negotitated settlement will take place.
While the opposition parties and some media will play this up with sensationalistic headlines as if it is the worst thing that could happen ordinary folks will not be able to understand this whole thing much less care about it. They are busy trying to earn enough money to pay for gas that is now costing $1.30 a litre. If the Libs think this is their ticket to power they better think again.
I asked my married children who don't follow politics at all and are busy working and raising their familes if they heard about the in and out issue. They all looked at me with a blank look on their faces. When I explained it as best I could they laughed and mentioned they were happy with the $100.00 a month they were receiving for their children.
Elections Canada (EC) is an opponent of the Conservative Party.
EC did not investigate the Liberal Adscam fiasco and did not raid the Offices of the Liberal Party. Fines were never levied! Will the MSM ask why EC did not get involved??
Right on! That is the issue in a nutshell. Stop the hype and let the courts decide. However, unfortunately in Canada and Mexico you are guilty until proven innocent.
Eliz. Thompson of the Gazette is showing on her blog that the judge who signed the search warrant was a liberal appointee and donates to the party. I won't accuse the judge of being politically biased but the questions need to be asked. Why was it necessary to look for a Superior Court Judge in Toronto when there are plenty of Superior Court judges down the street for CPC HQ in Ottawa? Who invited the media, particularly the Liberal party? Was a any law broken when the search warrant was executed and delivered. This is beginning to smell to high heaven and if the media is interested in being fair and balanced (yeah right) then they should start digging. That is the bigger story. CPC spending their own money on election advertising is not very exciting. Let the court decide. The sooner the better for all the parties and the next election.
Hey Dave want to follow up on these statements from Thursday April 17, 2008, Its appears to be a LIBERAL IN AND OUT SCAM, I know you will have to do the research alone, as the Liberal Party of Canada won't help you with this one.
QP Thursday April 17, 2008
Peter Van Loan
Our view is we simply want the same treatment that others have received. For example, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, in 2004, received $16,132.93 from the Liberal Party to pay for advertising. Then after the campaign, she transferred back $16,132.93. It is the same—
Peter Van Loan
Mr. Speaker, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine just had an opportunity to get up and explain to the House her actions in 2004, where she accepted $16,000 from the Liberal Party, gave it back and then claimed a rebate on it. She did exactly what she says is criminal behaviour by the Conservative Party.
Guess what? She did that and now she claims it is wrong when we do it. That is our concern. We believe all parties should be treated the same. We believe this behaviour is legal, and we do not know why different standards should apply to different parties.
Peter Van Loan
Mr. Speaker, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine pointed out exactly the problem with the situation. Her return was cleared. The Liberal Party of Canada transferred $16,000, which she used on her campaign. She received it on May 29, 2004. She returned that $16,000 to the Liberal Party in October 2004 and she claimed a rebate from the taxpayers.
It is the exact same structure that has been used by all parties. We do not understand that when the Conservatives did it, it became inappropriate.
Are you kidding Dave and the rest of the PPG will run for cover. They won't investigate it just like Elections Canada did not investigate adscam after Corbeil admitted in the Gomery Inquiry he paid Liberal party workers with cash. Wouldn't want to do anything to tarnish the image of the media loved Liberal party in this country.
It is the fervent desire of the PPG that the Conservatives lose the next election so that they can go back to using Liberal party press releases as a basis for writing their news reports to reflect the Liberal spin.
There is enormous bias and hypocrisy in this case on the part of Elections Canada. Hopefuly it will be tried in court where Elections Canada officials will be cross examined to determine why they discriminate.
Why didn't Elections Canada investigate Adscam and raid the Liberal Party headquarters? We know why!
I have to agree here, and I think this is a story within itself.
I won't accuse the judge of political bias either, but I'm not afraid to suggest that maybe the judge was politically motivated. There is definately a question here about why they went to Toronto. Having been to Parliament Hill, and I'm sure many others here have also, once you step out onto the front lawns on the Hill, turn your head to the right and you'll see the Supreme Court of Canada, not a 5 minute walk away. Not even a 2 minute shuttle ride. There's really no excuse for having to go to Toronto to “find” a supreme court judge.
Come on now David, that's unworthy of you. Conservatives can take a beating when it comes to name-calling and unimportant rhetoric and you know that. When it comes to accusations of criminal activity, the Conservatives are going to stand up and defend themselves. Especially when they believe they didn't do anything wrong, and their accusors are engaging in the same thing.
It's the Pot calling the Kettle black. What's good for the Gander is good for the Goose. Choose whatever metaphor you like, but the fact remains; the Conservatives will fight for what they believe, and in the end if found in the wrong, they will accept the verdict and take their medicine. The other fact that remains is even if the other parties are a little more creative with how they do this, the principle is still the same.
Ultimately, the courts WILL decide who is right and who is wrong. I'll be very interested to see the headlines if the courts rule in favor of the Conservative Party of Canada. I certainly hope that as much hooplah is made of it as the accusations currently are.
The Courts will ultimately decide what the correct interpretation is but, in the meantime, reputations are seriously damaged by “raids” and “allegations”. You are guilty until proven innocent. Like Mexico!!