...Tory failure to disclose donations broke the law

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Kingsley leaves little doubt
Joan Bryden, Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, September 20, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley repudiated Tuesday all the arguments Conservatives have used to justify their party's failure to disclose up to $1.7 million in donations.

The independent elections watchdog, who is still investigating the matter, would not say outright that the governing party broke the law.

But during testimony before the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee, Kingsley left little doubt that the Tories violated the Canada Elections Act when they failed to report delegate fees to the party's 2005 policy convention as political donations.

Some 2,900 delegates attended the convention, which charged a regular fee of $600 each. Treasury Board President John Baird, the Harper government's point man on ethics, and Conservative party brass have maintained that the fees did not constitute donations because they simply covered the costs of staging the convention, which did not turn a profit.

Kingsley bluntly demolished that argument.

"Profit's got nothing to do with it," he told the committee.

Under the Elections Act, Kingsley said: "A fee paid to attend a political event of a registered party amounts to a contribution to the party except where the attendee receives some tangible benefit having a commercial value."

If the fee includes a benefit such as meals and lodging, he said that portion of the fee would not count as a contribution.

However, Kingsley stressed that "the right to participate in the political life or decisions of a registered party . . . including the right to attend political conventions does not, under the act, constitute a tangible benefit to be excluded from the value of a contribution."

The issue boiled over late last June when Baird blurted out, during an appearance before the same Senate committee, that the Tories hadn't disclosed their 2005 convention fees as donations.

The admission sparked a furor, with Liberals and New Democrats demanding an investigation. Kingsley asked the Tories to turn over their convention books so that he could look into the matter.

Only two weeks ago, Conservative executive director Michael Donison explicitly told the same Senate committee that his party had complied with Kingsley's request.

"Yes, we have . . . We are dealing with Elections Canada on that matter and we will comply with whatever requirements they have," Donison said.

However, Kingsley told The Canadian Press that he has yet to receive the convention books. The Conservatives have handed over only "what is required by law," which is the party's annual financial statement for 2005. Such statements are vague, listing donors and outlining the party's expenses in broad brush strokes.

"That is not quite sufficient to allow us to do an audit because it is not the (convention) books," Kingsley said after the Senate hearing.

"If they've given me anything else it's caught up in some type of delivery system because I have not received it," he added, noting that the party has had two and a half months to comply.

Liberal Senator Joseph Day later said he wants to follow up on that with Kingsley to see if Donison misled the committee. Donison did not respond to a request for an interview Tuesday.

Liberal party national director Steven MacKinnon said Kingsley's testimony amounts to "complete vindication" for the Liberals' interpretation of the law.

"It's hard to draw any other conclusion that than (the Tories) have engaged in covering up millions of dollars in contributions."

MacKinnon noted that Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, was the Tory party's executive director when the decision was made not to report the 2005 delegate fees as donations. He suggested Brodie may have to resign.

"The chief electoral officer has, in effect, said that the Conservative party has broken the law . . . and the prime minister must seek a clarification from his chief of staff or it will be pretty hard for him to continue in his job."

The issue arose because of the Tory government's Federal Accountability Act, aimed at cleaning up government in the wake of Liberal-era scandals.

Among other things, the act proposes to slash the limit for personal political donations to $1,000 per year from $5,400.

If the act goes into force this fall, as the Tories want, Liberals fear that anyone who has donated more than $5 to their party this year will not be able to pay the $995 fee to attend the Liberal leadership convention in December without exceeding the limit.

Kingsley confirmed the Liberals' fears are well founded. To avoid problems, he suggested potential delegates could pay their convention fees early, before the act goes into effect.

wonder if the CONservatives are going to stall on the $$M vote now their war chest is on the blocks. I KNEW this session was going to be a hoot. Baird is SO much under the gun these days. :lol: :lol:
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
I read an article a few minutes ago where the Cons say they turned over the books and the Auditor said they have not. It's like watching a tennis match, back and forth. Come clean and move on, ya lied don't they all.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
I've seen what the Tories handed in. Its been on the Elections Canada website for months. Doesn't even come close to what the CONs know damn well he needs to do an audit. I'm sure they'll cooperate...

as soon as they nail down which set of books they used. :lol:
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
good point.

maybe he should update his resume to "Canada's New Government" just in case.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I thought these Tory folks were going to be above all the evils of the Liberals and other lesser beings. The new era of perfection was being ushered in? Ya right. These people are more filled with themselves than the last bunch to sit on the government side of the house.
No matter the next election will send the Tories back to the political wilderness where they belong.
 

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
Agreed. And then some of the more radical can go on and bitch and complain and say how crapy canada is like they did before they won the election of 2006 and say "we love canada".

Now this is not directed at Harper, but other more radical people in his party. Ones that would align themselves to the likes of the Western Standard.
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
Damngrumpy wrote: No matter the next election will send the Tories back to the political wilderness where they belong.

Yes but they will be safe in the woods because they broke their promise to scrap the Gun Registry. No Con sorry I'm mean dear hunting for criminals with guns--wait criminals don't register their guns. I'm so confused. Snicker,snicker.

From my perspective, me being neither Lib or Con is this:

Cut GST, not much help for me we have HST, raise low income earners income Taxes and thus they get their money back. Shake head, so where is the savings? Oh they raised my income tax level againnnnnnnnnnnnn.

Cut back Canada Pensions indirectly by raising the Medicare Cost for Elderly people and spin it like it's a good thing?

Keep the Gun Registry even thou they promised to axe it.

Back pedal on Waiting List at Hospitals, see item two maybe they are hoping we'll just die and solve this problem for them.

Last but not least, refusing to hand over the books when they got caught hiding money?

As a newbie how am I doing explaining our current Government?

I need a drink.
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
Those damn conservatives.Thier supporters give them money,they don't report it and say it is a technicality.Something about vague rules on what is a contribution.This is right up there with our Liberals stealing countless millions from the treasury and giving it to thier friends to give back to them. YUP, same thing ,any fool can see that. Now we have to find backdoor ways to give people money to come to our leadership convention. Damn those inbred conservatives. If I had a nickel for every dollar we stole,I would have a whole bunch of moola and we could put things back to normal.Damn thieving conservatives,don't they know enough to steal from other folk.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
Re: RE: ...Tory failure to disclose donations broke the law

wallyj said:
Those damn conservatives.Thier supporters give them money,they don't report it and say it is a technicality.Something about vague rules on what is a contribution.This is right up there with our Liberals stealing countless millions from the treasury and giving it to thier friends to give back to them. YUP, same thing ,any fool can se that.

Why is it that whenever the ethics of the conservatives comes under question, the subject is diverted to the sponsorship scandal? Is it Ok for the conservatives to be corrupt, as long as they are not as corrupt as the liberals? Oh, and when I say "liberals" I mean previous members of the liberal party.
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
It is not O.K. for the cons or any party to be corrupt or thieves.If they steal,throw them in jail.But there is a HUGE difference between contributions given freely to a party and not being reported as contributions due to a vague law and a party that stole with both hands from the treasury.When you say previous members,WTF, have they all left? Take a look at the leadership candidates and tell me who besides Iggy and Rae were not there 3 years ago.I am not saying they are all thieves,but when you turn a blind eye to crime you are aiding and abetting.Every Lib who was elected in 2004 in Quebec benefitted from stolen money,through advertising,kickbacks,payroll ghosts,etc.How many stood up and acknowledged that? 24, 22, 14, 3 ,even 1. Nada.zip,zero. Makes one think ,doesn't it?
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
Re: RE: ...Tory failure to disclose donations broke the law

wallyj said:
It is not O.K. for the cons or any party to be corrupt or thieves.If they steal,throw them in jail.But there is a HUGE difference between contributions given freely to a party and not being reported as contributions due to a vague law and a party that stole with both hands from the treasury.When you say previous members,WTF, have they all left? Take a look at the leadership candidates and tell me who besides Iggy and Rae were not there 3 years ago.I am not saying they are all thieves,but when you turn a blind eye to crime you are aiding and abetting.Every Lib who was elected in 2004 in Quebec benefitted from stolen money,through advertising,kickbacks,payroll ghosts,etc.How many stood up and acknowledged that? 24, 22, 14, 3 ,even 1. Nada.zip,zero. Makes one think ,doesn't it?

So, do you acknowledge that the conservatives were unethical (if not for failing to report contributions, then for not cooperating)?

By previous members, I mean it was previous members who were implicated for corruption. None of the current members stole any money, why should they be blamed? It's like saying I live in Canada, and Canadians stole money, therefore I am guilty of stealing. As for not accepting and not acknowledging the illegal money, how many of the Quebec candidates knew that the money was illicit before it became public? And at that point, the liberals had promised to return every penny, so those candidates who unknowingly accepted contributions weren't guilty if they knew the money was being repaid. Now, if the liberals haven't paid back (/don't intend to pay back) that money then that is a whole different issue for which they deserve to be blasted. But so far, they claim to have paid the money back and I've yet to see evidence otherwise, though if you have any I'd appreciate seeing it.

P.S. Volpe is an idiot, and deserves to be disqualified from the leadership contest....not that he has a chance anyways.
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
You do bring up some good points,I do not think they were being unethical as the regulations have been interpeted for years as legal. If it is wrong then they should definetely make things right. Your guilt by association example doesn't hold water. You are using a WHOLE country as an example. It was not that. I am not guilty for my neighbour's crimes,but if my neighbour and I both benefit from his crime, I am if I know about it.I cannot say that every Liberal in Quebec knew about the shenanigans going on,but really with that much cash floating around, a red light should be going off. Yes, they have claimed to have paid back all they STOLE,but they are thieves,why should you or I or anyone believe them?
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
Re: RE: ...Tory failure to disclose donations broke the law

wallyj said:
Your guilt by association example doesn't hold water. You are using a WHOLE country as an example. It was not that.

It was an extreme example to show a point.

I am not guilty for my neighbour's crimes,but if my neighbour and I both benefit from his crime, I am if I know about it.I cannot say that every Liberal in Quebec knew about the shenanigans going on,but really with that much cash floating around, a red light should be going off.

Agreed. If anyone in the liberal party knew about money being stolen and did not speak up, they are guilty. I've yet to see evidence that anyone in the current party knew what was going on. If evidence does surface, my opinion of that person (or persons), will change considerably.

Yes, they have claimed to have paid back all they STOLE,but they are thieves,why should you or I or anyone believe them?

Once again, the thieves are gone from the party. I would not vote for any of those crooks if they were still in the party. But it is the current members, ie the non-thieves, who are claiming the money has been paid back. I assume there is an auditor somewhere keeping track of whether the money is being paid back? I hope so anyways.
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
You assume the thieves are gone. You want to believe the thieves are gone.It is not just the "non-thieves" who claim the money has been paid back,it is all the liberal party and supporters who parrot that refrain.I do not believe that for one moment.40 million has disappeared that even the AG cannot find. We are talking an organized group of con artists. Where is Chretien's friend (sic) De couvrier,in the Caymans ,partying.Why has Bill Graham been accused of pedophilia and still there? Google(Lawrence Metherel and Graham) for the lowdown on that on. Unfortunately,you believe in a party that has gone sadly astray,they are in the ditch,eye to eye with slime,looking for a rock to crawl under. There may be a lot of good people left in the party,but if you hang around with skunks long enough you don't even notice the stench.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
Re: RE: ...Tory failure to disclose donations broke the law

wallyj said:
You assume the thieves are gone. You want to believe the thieves are gone.

Do you have any evidence otherwise? Current members were exonerated by Gomery. Do you have any evidence that Gomery's conclusion was wrong?
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
No.I don't have any evidence that would produce a conviction. If I did I would turn it over. In court they have gotten off,in the real world they are guilty.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
damngrumpy said:
I thought these Tory folks were going to be above all the evils of the Liberals and other lesser beings. The new era of perfection was being ushered in? Ya right. These people are more filled with themselves than the last bunch to sit on the government side of the house.
No matter the next election will send the Tories back to the political wilderness where they belong.


Well, at least Canada got the Liberals to begin cleaning house.

Let me know when Canada now cleans up the Conservative Party of their power hungry control freaks, hypocrites, and hardliners so we can try to get back to the representation of a more moderate conservative base. None of this 'pretend moderate conservatism'.