Elections Canada renews hostilities with the Tories - Macleans.ca

Elections Canada renews hostilities with the Tories

Agency says party hid spending on two campaign offices in 2006


Elections Canada has once again targeted the federal Conservatives for reprimand. Federal election officials say the party violated election laws by improperly accounting for the cost of running two regional campaign offices in Quebec. Instead of filing them as national campaign expenses, which Elections Canada says they were, the Conservatives split the $107,000 tab for the offices between 15 candidates in Quebec City and Montreal. According to Elections Canada, since the candidates made little or no use of the offices, they shouldn’t have been able to claim them as expenses. The party has complied “under protest” with Mr. Mayrand’s demand that it file a revised campaign financial return, adding on the cost of the regional offices. But it has also served notice that it intends to challenge the watchdog’s order in court. Elections Canada and the Conservatives are still involved in a legal battle over the so-called in-and-out scheme the Conservatives used in the 2006 election to pay for party advertising.

The Globe and Mail

Filed under:

Elections Canada renews hostilities with the Tories

  1. Elections Canada is a Liberal mouth peace.they lost the last round but continue to go after stupid things so that the publicity will be in every media outlet.what about all the Liberals who exceeded their spending limits in the last election?

    • Hey Gar, did your puny pea brain consider the fact that Mayrand, the head of Elections Canada, was appointed by Harper himself?? Why is it each and every time Canadian institutions that are respected internationally and world reknown for their integrity, whenever, they investigate the Harper Goon Squad for wrong doing, suddenly all the Reform Cons crawl out of from under their rocks in the shallow end of the gene pool screaming Liberal conspiracy.

      • Because the liberals are not one bit better and I think layer worce than anyone else as they are even bigger layers than anyone.

        • would you go as far as to say they are layers upon layers?

    • Gar is another simple Harper tool with a simple message for simple minds.

    • *piece

  2. Heir Harper at it again.

    Hey Gar you a tory??? Love to hear the conservatives talk. They make a mistake and bring up problems from 5 years ago.


    • Randy, Gar and all the rest of you…
      When will you wake up and realise that all Politicians (capitalised as they consider themselves Gods) are corrupt. It is a good ole boys club. Sure they fight over who controls the club, but they are all in it together. They have fake platforms so that you will have something to believe in and fight for. Which Team are you on? My Team is better than your Team. All the while they just keep taking more from us and giving us less. What has hapened to your net income in the last 25 years? Now compare to theirs. So stop fighting against each other and start seeing your real opponents.

  3. EC is now explicitly Liberal – their bias has been visible for a while now but this just confirms it for the umpteenth time.

    • How is this bias visible? With umpteen examples, I am prepared to be overwhelmed by the Elections Canada as a Liberal Party apparatus narrative.

      • focusing exclusively on the legal in-out scheme (and tipping off the liberal party of the raid on conservative party headquarters a little while ago), and ignoring the Liberal leadership candidates (from back when Liberal leaders were somehow chosen out of a field of candidates) not paying back their debts on time…

        • So that is two that are very arguable. One involves a federal body performing due diligence and the other comparing apples (election spending) to oranges (leadership debt).

          Back to dry dock with the premise of Liberal bias.

          • You may consider them "very arguable". I would say they establish at least a prima facie case of bias, in particular the fact that EC is quite lenient towards one party, and very strict towards another.

          • "Prima Facie: Literally, "at first appearance"; a Latin expression used to describe a proposition that, if unanswered, would be accepted as valid"

            Taking two examples from how many decisions over how many years?

            If unanswered, your examples do not meet this definition.

          • Sorry but it does: in one case, EC is letting the Liberals off a literal and clear-cut violation of the act. In the other, the conservatives are doing something that is not illegal per se, but against the spirit of the act, and they're getting the full weight of EC thrown at them, and that even after a court ruled the in-out-scheme LEGAL.

            If this is not bias frankly I dont know what is, should we wait until the head of EC personally appears in Liberal advertisement?

          • "If this is not bias frankly I dont know what is,"


          • This is splitting hairs. They both are transgressions of rules regarding elections — just not the same rule. I don't see that they are qualitatively different. The leadership debt issue means a potential leader can spend more than he has available and just take forever to pay it back. Moreover, the Conservative spending is not so much overspending — just a question of how the money is divided. I think it is highly artificial and constraining to attempt to distinguish between national and local spending — the locals benefit from anything done nationally — or to verify claims that someone did not use their office — maybe they were sharing staff or something. Election Canada is deliberately going after Conservatives — I believe it is anti-conservative bureaucrats pursuing these issues.

          • Leadership campaigns have no relation to general elections and frankly have nowhere near the importance. Comparing them as equal is a false equivalence.

          • its not leadership campaigns or general elections which are being compared, its the treatment of the main parties by EC: in one case lenient, and flexible in its application of the letter of the law, and in another abusive (leak on the raid to cbc and liberal party), and super strict in its application of the spirit of the law.

            Canadians can no longer have faith in their institutions when lefty partisan douchebags behave like that. We need to purge our institutions of these people if we are to regain confidence in them.

          • It is like treating back taxes and tax fraud as the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are treated differently because they are different.

            I don't know how many ways I can say different things are treated differently because they are different. Saying two different things are the same or equal doesn't make them the same or comparable in such simple terms. After all, they are different.

            They are not the same and as such are not treated the same. They are different situations. They are not equivalent.

          • Speaking of leadership, did Harper ever reveal who funded his rise to leadership?

          • But in both cases of back taxes and tax frauds, the Income Tax Act is what determines to what extent they are treated differently. And the Election Act does the same for leadership campaign spending and general election spending. The distinction in this case which is most relevant is that the Act itself is not being applied equally – that different things are treated differently is neither here nor there, the Act should be applied equally across its provisions and its certainly not up to some EC bureaucrat to judge of the pertinence of provisions of the Act and the severity with which they ought to be applied.

          • They are different categories of things and simply because legislation is enforced by the same body does not mean different categories of things must be treated equally. That is why back taxes accrue interest while tax frauds are remedied with legal sanctions (fines and/or prison). They are both offenses, but different offenses. They are treated differently because they are different.

            If I commit fraud for $1-million I will be treated differently than if I owe $50 for 4 years to the government.

          • ok. sloooooooooooooowly this time. these differences originate from the Act. but in both cases, Revenue Canada will apply the law neutrally.

            here, the differences in treatment do not originate from the Act – they originate from the subjective bias of officials at EC, because if they were to treat everybody neutrally, they would still treat the in-out-scheme and the debt repayment differently, but they would both be treated according to the act. This is not currently the case.

          • You must break and concede I am right! Or agree to disagree.

        • I agree — way to many EC favours for Liberals while there is a clear determination to snag Conservatives for minor nit-picky things. I think it is shameful.

          • And the head of the EC was appointed by Harper. Next talking point.

          • Mayrand has been a federal civil servant since the days of Turdeau (1982), senior positions are always filled from within the liberally bloated bureaucracy………nuff said.

          • For a conservative talking point troll, it is never enuff said. would it were not so.

          • Linda/Bob

            Nit picky?

            Like potential fraud of hundreds of thousands of dollars? Taxpayer dollars!!! (I use the word "taxpayer a lot now. Learned that from Rob Ford)

      • You are correct. Just another example of a Government Agency trying to substantiate it's existence

        • Yeah, who needs an election watchdog? We can do just fine without those pesky rules. Just look at Haiti. And Afghanastan. And, um, Burma. Or Iran. North Korea. Florida…

    • Yah, this is Harper's PMO Talking Points Evasion Tactic #4. Attack the messenger's credibility, distract from the real story.

    • Just like that Nuke watchdog – they're all pinkos, right Allnerd?

  4. Aren't you glad these neo-creeps aren't your next door neighbours? Every time you had a valid complaint, they'd challenge you with a lawsuit. For a transparent and 'accountable' group, they sure are costing us a lot of our hard-earned tax dollars.

    I really do want Canada back. This abysmal blip of loud-mouthed, boorish incivility should almost be done with and we can return to being a decent country again.

  5. Get caught with your hand in the cookie jar and go on the attack, sounds like the conservatives have learned their lessons well from their Amerikan NeoCon masters.

  6. We have to finish punishing the Liberals first.

    • Don't think the Liberals need our help.

    • Harper has no ethics when it comes to getting votes. He'll try anything, right or wrong, until it works or he get's caught. If he gets caught, his minions overwhelm news sites with stupid posts to misdirect attention. It's not working anymore.

  7. Corrupt LIberals can pay back the $40 million dollars they stole from us any time now. Elections Canada is a nest of crooked Liberals.

    • Took you almost 3 hours to try to change the channel. You're slipping. Hope the party doesn't notice how lax you've been, or there goes your personally monogrammed blue sweater bonus…

  8. what did you expect from this LIEING bunch of goons ASK HARPER about the Politicens pension plan QUOTE I WOULD never be able to look my wife or my supporters in the eye if I ever jumped into the pork trough that is the pension plan UNQUOTE HARPER WELL guess what as soon as he could he was in right up to his lieing snout I often wonder if he knows the colour of her eyes

  9. Harper is concernd with the public personal debt And Falahtery says the public dont understand debt They better give their heads a shake .THEY got us 50, 60 BILLION in the hole making phatom jobs another 50 BILLION for airplanes that we cant aford how about the 1 OR 2 BILLION for G20 G8 and the immortal fake lake then they annouce 300 BILLION to PRATT & WHITTNY . where is that comimg from ???? DO they not know that more then !/2 of our incomes goes to OTTAWA for them to waste

  10. If the Conservative Party is so disgusted at having to comply with Elections Canada rules, they should do the country a huge favour and boycott the next Elections Canada-run election.

  11. I guess we just have to face the facts that the Harperits just can't deal honestly, they would'nt feel right doing things the right way, it goes back to Chuck Cadman, the old in-out cheat, trust fund theft and the list goes on and on.

  12. Elections Canada's vendetta against the Conservative party continues… yawn. I'm just glad EC has distorted the rules enough for Steve (the rocket) Dion to pay back his debts when it's convenient for him to do so, and not as the rules dictate. Could there be a double standard at work within the "Liberal" bureaucracy of EC ? Naw… that could never happen. Maybe it's time for EC to "raid " Conservative party headquarters again, with CBC cameras in tow of course… but bias? Never. There could never ever be even the slightest bit of bias by "Liberal" bureaucrats of EC, never ever, no way, nah ah, not even slightly probable.

    • "Yawn" – another common evasion tactic used by the Con news forum trolls. Also called the "nothing to see here folks, move along" strategy.

      • Whatsmore some of them take such a long time to say it.

      • "Yawn"- another common evasion tactic used by the "Liberal" news forum trolls. Also called the "ignore the double standard folks, move along" strategy.

  13. Legitimate office expenses were split among candidates – that's shocking!
    Corrupt Liberals make fools of themselves by trying to turn something as banal as this into an issue. Hypocrites.