The Conservative Party is not Corrupt. The Conservative Party is not...
Tories broke regulations on election finances, Liberals say
GLORIA GALLOWAY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
August 24, 2007 at 4:02 AM EDT
OTTAWA — The Liberals accused the federal Conservatives yesterday of exceeding election spending limits by more than a million dollars in the final days of the 2006 campaign by passing off national advertising costs as money spent by local candidates.
Elections Canada is now locked in a court battle with 37 of the candidates who want the government - which returns 60 per cent of the election expenses of candidates who get at least 10 per cent of the votes in their riding - to reimburse them for the costs.
Barbara McIsaac, a lawyer for the chief electoral officer, says in a court document that they are not entitled to the money because what the Conservatives call a "regional media buy" was "not an expense of the candidates who claimed it but an expense of the party."
Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc demanded at a news conference that the Conservatives open their books to both the public and Elections Canada,
"The Conservative Party appears to have perhaps exceeded the national campaign spending limits by perhaps over a million dollars," Mr. LeBlanc said.
GLORIA GALLOWAY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
August 24, 2007 at 4:02 AM EDT
OTTAWA — The Liberals accused the federal Conservatives yesterday of exceeding election spending limits by more than a million dollars in the final days of the 2006 campaign by passing off national advertising costs as money spent by local candidates.
Elections Canada is now locked in a court battle with 37 of the candidates who want the government - which returns 60 per cent of the election expenses of candidates who get at least 10 per cent of the votes in their riding - to reimburse them for the costs.
Barbara McIsaac, a lawyer for the chief electoral officer, says in a court document that they are not entitled to the money because what the Conservatives call a "regional media buy" was "not an expense of the candidates who claimed it but an expense of the party."
Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc demanded at a news conference that the Conservatives open their books to both the public and Elections Canada,
"The Conservative Party appears to have perhaps exceeded the national campaign spending limits by perhaps over a million dollars," Mr. LeBlanc said.
posted by calgarygrit at
11:56 a.m.
23 Comments:
and the source of the allegation is whom ??
Oh ya . . Corruption Inc . . aka the Adscam Associates . . . aka . . . the Liberal Party of Canada.
you do know about glass house owners I presume ?
By
Anonymous, at 1:09 p.m.
Actually Elections Canada has a little something to do with uncovering this little sleight of hand by the party of openness and accountability.
Perhaps you should concentrate on your reading abilities a bit more than defending your buddies.
By
Anonymous, at 1:22 p.m.
The Cons will never quit about Adscam.With the unelected Michael Fortier selling all the Government buildings, or all he can get away with, at some below the cost.
They can cry and squeal about Adscam but the things their government is doing, would make Adscam look like nothing and for goodness sake, that has been settled by Gomery. Grow up. fred
By
A Eliz., at 1:24 p.m.
There is an easy explanation to this 'in and out' money funnelling, and to not reporting donations to your party for the convention.
I believe the explanation will begin with "After 13 years of liberal..."
I actually think the cons won't get this set aside in court, and this issue will snowball on them in the fall.
By
kenlister1, at 2:30 p.m.
Lizt - Adscam was more than "nothing" it was a massive fraud, orchistrated by the Liberal Party against the people of Canada. They basically turned the Sponsorship Program into a criminal racket complete with fraud and money laundering to an extent that we will never know.
Now, you say that is not even a blip on the radar because there's a possibility the Conservatives may have spent a little more money than they should have and took advantage of a loophole that the Liberals created and which was open to everybody?
If thats really what you think, I'd suggest trying to screw your head on a bit tighter because there's obviously some loose connections up there.
The bottom line is that the crooks in the Liberal Party, like Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, who orchestrated that massive fraud against me and my fellow citizens deserve to be behind bars. Until justice has been served, and those men still remain members, the Liberal Party will remain a corrupt organization.
By
Unknown, at 2:35 p.m.
Actually, it was Canwest reporters who uncovered the info.
By
Unknown, at 3:14 p.m.
Lizt can offer their own defense I'm sure, but I do have to point out they didn't say Adscam was nothing. The statement indicated that on the current course conservative hi-jinks and back-room deals would soon eclipse it.
The real beauty of your argument, though, and the ongoing appeal to conservatives to mention Adscam anytime they can is being able to forever claim it "isn't over."
By simply proclaiming it a wide-sweeping and ever-expanding conspiracy - despite Gomery, convictions, and public and media scrutiny that found a much more limited scandal - you can paint all liberals anywhere and everywhere with the same brush forever. "Until "X" occurs, all liberals are corrupt forever and no one should ever under any circumstances vote for them." Oh the supreme power the conservative would reap if they could just plant that thought in everyone's head. My favorite niche aspect of this little delusion is that the amount of money supposedly swindled can grow and expand over the years as well. Perhaps decades from now, conservative bloggers will proclaim the "billions of dollars and countless lives" lost in the Adscam battles, since by then no one will ever know what the issue was originally about anyway and since (wink, wink) no one ever really knew just how bad it really was.
But then, this post wasn't about the Liberals or Adscam at all, it was about how your precious Conservatives are charged by Elections Canada with blatantly shifting funds around to BREAK THE LAW (not just find a loophole) in order to exceed legal campaign funding limits.
But then they could never do anything wrong, could they? After all, they are the party of openness and accountability!
Better start banging that Adscam drum a bit louder so no one notices the shell game in the back office.
By
Anonymous, at 3:23 p.m.
I agree with the Conservatives. Adscam should give the CPC the right to behave in as corrupt a manner as they can. In fact, they're allowed three times the corruption of Adscam.
Conservative supporters think the Conservative Party is up to it, although, obviously, they know more than the Liberals do.
Go for it Conservatives. Corrupt away. You have my blessing...
By
Ti-Guy, at 3:36 p.m.
Good post joseph.
If we are to accept Mr. Smith's grand overstatement of the facts and evidence, and the implication that this involves the entire liberal party for now and forever, then he will have to accept the fact that conservatives are utterly adn forever corrupt, based on the fact that Sir John A once demanded and received bribes in the Pacific Rail scandal.
As for the subject of this post, the real problem for Harper et al is that they ran on the basis that they are squeaky clean, when in fact, they are not. They set the bar so high that they cannot meet it. If they feel Canadians and the media are being overly critical, they only have themselves to blame.
By
Gayle, at 3:42 p.m.
Its sad to see normally reasonable people froth at the mouth and spew nonsense whenever the subject of adscam is brought up.
The "criminal" aspects of adscam were the work of a small cadre of bureaucrats and partisans. This is not to say that the Liberal Party and its leadership were not culpable for what went on--far from it. In fact both deserve a share of the blame for what went on. But the extent of that culpabiltiy is negligence in oversight not intentional criminal actions.
The suggestion that the Liberal Party is somehow a "corrupt organization" and that Paul Martin and Jean Chretien should go to jail is absolutely ludicrous and demonstrates opportunistic partisanship rather than a careful examination of the facts and the legal and moral principles involved. If every party and its leadership were criminally liable for negligent oversight resulting in lost taxpayer money every Prime Minister in Canadian history would have gone to jail. If you actually have any knowledge of genuine criminal acts on the part of Jean Chretien or Paul Martin then why didn't you pass that information on to Justice Gomery when he was conducting his inquiry? Why haven't you informed the police? Because you have none. You are simply spinning negligence into a crime.
Regardless of who is to blame for adscam one of these days supporters of the Conservative Party are going to have acknowledge the legal and ethical lapses of their party (like this) rather than simply obfuscating debate. Didn't anyone ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
By
KC, at 3:52 p.m.
Allow me to clear a few things up.
1. I was not defending the Conservative's actions, I was mearly stating the obvious fact that these allegations are not nearly as bad as what the Liberals did. Of course that does not make them right, it just means the Liberals were worse.
2. There is a difference between wasting taxpayer money and stealing/laundering it. KC is right to point out that money is wasted or "lost" under every PM, but it is exceptionally rare for the ruling party to use an arm of the federal government as a shell to launder money back into the party.
3. Yes, Joseph, ir John A Macdonald's government was corrupt, but since nobody in that government is alive today, you cannot reasonably paint the current Conservative government with the same brush. That's just blind partisanship.
4. It is utterly irresponsible to say that the political masters of the time (PMs Chretien and Martin) should not be accountable because they were "negligent in oversight." This is the same defence that corporate crooks like Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlowski put forward. It didn't fly for them, and it certainly shouldn't fly for the former Prime Ministers.
I respectfully request that in the future you do not use my statements out of context.
By
Unknown, at 4:24 p.m.
1. OK so you were merely guilty of stating the irrelevant rather than defending bad conduct.
2. They are only different with respect to the people who actually do the wasting (which is just incompetence) and stealing/laundering (which is criminal). But there is no difference between the two with respect to the superiors who fail to prevent it from happening. Both leaders are guilty of the same thing--negligence. In fact an argument could be made that superiors are less culpable for theft by their underlings as people make more of an effort to conceal their theft than their incompetence (which they often dont even see as "waste"). The fact that the underlings used that money in adscam to enrich the governing political party rather than enrich themselves and themselves is also irrelevant as it affects the culpability of superiors. Its still negligence.
3. None of the people who were involved with adscam enjoy positions of power within the Liberal Party today. Therefore I see no difference between the two.
4. Now you are taking MY comments out of context. I never said they shouldnt be held accountable I said they shouldnt get to jail. They were held accountable. They were voted out of office which is the normal way that Prime Ministers are punished for their negligence. Are we going to start suing all former Prime Ministers for their negligence? Are we going to start sending them to jail? Of course not. Thats not the way it works, nor is it the way it ever has worked. Im sure if we dig hard enough we can find evidence of negligence on Harper's part that has cost the taxpayers money. Are we going to sue him or send him to jail?
By
KC, at 4:37 p.m.
What? The Liberals aren't the only corrupt party? It's actually ALL politicians?
Wow, thanks for breaking this story!
By
Robert Vollman, at 4:55 p.m.
Okay, if true, this is obviously wrong and someone's heads should roll - it's time we started getting tough on our politicians. And if found true, then the buck stops at Harper's desk - same as it did Chretien/Martin's.
But for Lizt to suggest that Adscam was nothing, and that it's somehow wrong for people to keep bringing it up is insulting. ALL Canadians should keep bringing it up - because it was wrong. Lizt is just another Liberal apologist, in a long line of Liberal ass-kissers.
In a few years' time, there'll be a new generation of Conservative apologists excusing the corruption of Tory officials. That doesn't mean that Lizt isn't a fool who cares more about the fortunes of Liberals than about Canadians' right to honest government.
And Fred, just because a Liberal alleges something, it doesn't follow that it is necessarily false, or that the Liberal in question is even necessarily dishonest.
Is everyone 7 all of a sudden?
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 5:21 p.m.
Let us look at what Liz actually said, shall we?
"They can cry and squeal about Adscam but the things their government is doing, would make Adscam look like nothing and for goodness sake, that has been settled by Gomery."
She does not say Adscam is nothing. She says by comparison with what the conservatives have done it may be nothing.
It may be a little poorly worded, and I am not saying I agree, but let us limit our criticism to her actual point.
For what it is worth, personally I would rather have the liberals, despite the fact that a small number of them committed this fraud, than Harper. I realize some of you think that the mere fact Adscam occured means that no liberal should ever be elected again, but when I vote for a party I vote for the one I believe will do the best thing for my country now. If the liberals had not acted to remove these party members and if Martin had not established the Gomery Enquiry and instead simply attempted to hide this, then things might be different.
When people like Andrew exaggerate the facts on Adscam it does not assist the argument.
By
Gayle, at 5:53 p.m.
This story is simply an edit of the original story in the Ottawa Citizen by two other journalists. I guess writing an original piece is beyond Ms. Galloway, or is it simply her husband writing under her by-line ???
In any case, Elections Canada is investigating about 30% of ALL MPs expenses, not just Conservatives, although obviously that doesn't make such a good story for the Globe.
Furthermore, it is the Conservative Party who took Elections Canada to court over this. Doesn't sound particularly sneaky to me, in fact it would seem like they think they did nothing wrong.
By
jad, at 7:03 p.m.
Since these Conservative assholes went around call the Grits "Libranos" over the sponsorship scandal, I think call them CONservatives is more than fair game. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
By
John Murney , at 9:10 p.m.
"The bottom line is that the crooks in the Liberal Party, like Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, who orchestrated that massive fraud against me and my fellow citizens deserve to be behind bars."
Oh lord, give me a break. Considering Paul Martin was rich and succesful before even bothering with politics on what basis is he a crook? It's not like he was in politics to enrich himself with taxpayer money. And to say he orchestrated the sponsorship scandal, well that's silly.
By
Dan McKenzie, at 12:30 a.m.
But then, this post wasn't about the Liberals or Adscam at all, it was about how your precious Conservatives are charged by Elections Canada with blatantly shifting funds around to BREAK THE LAW (not just find a loophole) in order to exceed legal campaign funding limits.
If you'll notice, Mr. Reading Comprehension, it's the Conservatives who are suing Elections Canada, not the other way around. The only real dispute is whether these CPC candidates are entitled to a refund.
However, Dominic LeBlanc and the Liberals are smart enough to know that no matter how baseless your mudslinging is, some of it will inevitably stick, which is why they immediately made the leap from "legal dispute over refunds" to "teh election fraud!!!11". Of course, it helps when you've got a compliant MSM reporter or two. (How's the hubby, Gloria?)
By
The Invisible Hand, at 2:06 a.m.
Wow - the conSERVATIVEs totally won this debate. Adscam was mentioned about 20 times in this comment section regarding an article on the CPC. If only every debate could be this easy for them - they'd never have to justify any of their actions.
god speed on deciding 5 new priorities.
By
Unknown, at 2:45 a.m.
It’s a pity that harper doesn’t have any achievements that could excuse his failings. That’s why the right-wing keeps using adscam. They’ve nothing positive to show for the CPC’s 21 months in power.
On the other hand, chretian may be a failed leader. But, his government erased the budget deficit and paved the way for our present prosperity.
Oh! And, kept us out of Iraq!
By
JimTan, at 8:05 p.m.
LESLIE LUNDQUIST, a manager with Calgary-based Bissett Investment Management, is finding better opportunities in trusts other than REITs.
Leslie, will you be attending Garth Turner's Lost Tory Tour in AB? Mark September 12 on your Daytimer. It'd be great to see you there. Details are at www.garth.ca/weblog/.
By
Kephalos, at 11:15 p.m.
This won't actually have success, I think so.
By
www.lerida-3d.com, at 5:41 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home