Another “big victory”

The Conservatives have dropped their appeal of a federal court ruling in the in-and-out affair.

The Conservative Party of Canada has repaid taxpayers $230,198 for the “in-and-out” election financing dispute and dropped its appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada … Elections Canada refused to issue the more than $800,000 in total rebates to the Conservative Party and the party then sued to get the money.

They won the case in a lower court ruling, but in early 2011, the federal Court of Appeal unanimously overturned that ruling, saying Elections Canada had every right to deny the expenses.

Four months ago, in a separate proceeding, the Conservative party pleaded guilty to violating the Elections Act.




Browse

Another “big victory”

  1. Wipe that smirk of your face Aaron, lol

    • Have they hit you up for a donation to the combat the…

      bloodsucking, 
      conservative baiting,
      liberal loving,
      democracy denying,
      Freedom hating,
      bane of honest campaigning,
      evile ‘hores over at ‘lection’s Canada…

      …yet?

    • no u

  2. Somehow I don’t think Cons are cheered by this

  3. Can we now safely call them a bunch of scheming crooks without being accused of unfair smearing, trial by public opinion, and the like?  Or is this still a paltry case of minor, justifiable criminal hypocrisy as compared to adscam and every other transgression committed by every other party since Pearson?

    • Did the LPC ever pay back a dime from AdScam? I don’t recall that ever happening.

      There was an accounting error, the money was paid back. No harm, no foul.

      • The amazing thing about all this is that you actually believe that, don’t you?

      • If it was just an accounting error, why did the Cons challenge it in court?

  4. Million bucks out of pocket…wonder if they’ve considered it was a bad idea over at Doug’s place yet?

    Wonder what the robocall scandal’s gonna cost ‘em?

    Wonder when it’s going to occur to AC that a twoonie per vote and little or no donor TCs is a small price to pay for democracy?

  5. The blog post author’s attempt to cast these matters as somehow akin to “crimes” as opposed to a disagreement as to the regulatory interpretation regarding a party spending one’s own money is startling.

    Then again, this blog post author has posted umpteen times regarding the robocall affair, laced with the constant suggestion that the Conservative party is guilty, all the while there being no evidence whatsoever supporting that suggestion.

    It’s been clear for some time that this blog has become a bulletin board for grievances of leftists.  However, while spin and anti-Harper whining is one thing, I suspect fair minded Canadians would be concerned that such a publicly traded company’s assets have become a tool for outright propaganda for the leftist cause.  It’s difficult to discern the difference between the style and content of NDP political publications and that which is published on this blog.  Indeed, in almost all respects, they appear one and the same.

    • Okay, so I’m guessing you don’t see this sudden move to drop the appeal as cynical optics management by a government trying to derail the momentum of a growing electoral scandal.

      Perhaps you have an opinion of what it is?

      • I don’t see this as a cynical ploy so much as a pragmatic move.

        They figure they’re going to need to shift all those lawyers over to another case.

    • ” as opposed to a disagreement as to the regulatory interpretation regarding a party spending one’s own money is startling.”

      Well see….the defendent doesn’t get to do the ‘interpreting’ of the law

      That’s what a judge and jury are for.

      • You really believe that jury’s are for interpreting law?

        • No, they’re for determining the defendent’s guilt or innocence based on the law.

    • Hint: Just because the facts are against you doesn’t mean the media is when they report on it.

    • Sounds like a threat…someone get the speaker over here.

    • “disagreement as to the regulatory interpretation ”

      In the US they throw people in jail for years over these – British peers included. – and they call it fraud.  Here these fraudsters are portrayed by the government as victims and  appointed to the Senate!

    • “Grievances of leftists?” Other than the fact that left and right have been useless, simplistic expressions for years (as opposed to ideologues vs. pragmatists, and/or authoritarian vs. democrat) my vote would be that the blog is a bulletin board for critics of the present government. I consider myself a centrist, a small “L” liberal democrat who believes that empirical research trumps ideology every day, that taxes could be lower, that the nanny state is highly problematic and I criticize this gov’t all the time, especially with respect to their incessant distortions, smears, secrecy and abuse of process. 

      Please retire the word “leftist.” It’s a deaf, dumb and blind manner of viewing the world.

      • But the Con bench is stuck in the 1950′s. Heck, I’m willing to bet that some of them have framed portraits of Sen. J. McCarthy in their rec rooms. 

        I stand with you in your political philosophy. It’s refreshing! 

        • There are now *206* names on the list, Mr. Smarty-Pants!

          • I’m probably one of them.

  6. Can you be PM from one of those super-jails?

    .
    .

  7. Every person in Her Majesty’s prisons “agree to disagree” with the crown.

  8. I will try to write the talking points:

    The Conservative Party is still batting .333 on this one!  That would get them a big contract in MLB.

  9. #winning

  10. The rogue PM eventually returned to the aircraft where he was surrounded by reporters and photographers, one of whom wondered whether he had a licence to operate the vehicle — especially on restricted space such as an air strip?

    “I think I make the rules,” the PM quipped.

    Globe & Mail, 26 August 2010.

    Harper thinks he makes all the rules, including those at Elections Canada.  Not so. As PM who holds the confidence of a majority in the House, if he wants to change the rules he definitely has the power to do so.  Why hide behind the veil of secrecy of in camera deliberations and votes at committees on matters pertaining to Elections Canada?

    • All in a matter of time — Steve prefers to work at a glacial pace hoping that no one will notice.

Sign in to comment.