The CanaDoper Café (2012 edition of The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread.)

[Leaffan]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Because you’re acting like a Harper Government apologist.

The reason that the Harper Government did not want Elections Canada to have the power to order documents to verify party expenses was to “save costs?” Do you expect the public to buy that? Seriously? They only have cost savings in mind, nothing else. Do you want to go with that?

You are aware that those that oversee the provincial elections already have these powers, yes?

I dunno. I’m just quoting the same article you are. It’s OK for you to cherry-pick quotes but not me?

What’s wrong with an independent review by private-sector compliance auditors. I assume they mean reputable auditors like KPMG, or Deloitte, or Ernst & Young, etc.

For whatever reasons, the Conservative party doesn’t have good relations with Elections Canada, I understand that. So they’d rather have someone else look at the books.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Leaffan

For whatever reasons, the Conservative party doesn’t have good relations with Elections Canada, I understand that. So they’d rather have someone else look at the books.

I would guess that the “whatever reason” might just be that the Elections Canada investigation into the “in and out” scandal led to a guilty plea by the Harper Government. If the party in power is investigated by Elections Canada, and the party in power is found guilty, then when the party in power acts to limit the investigative power of Elections Canada… Something stinks.

It looks bad.

They look guilty.

[Leaffan]

All parties have a long history of “in and out.”

From MacLeans:

To my knowledge, no one disputes this: Sect. 404 (2.1) of the Canada Elections Act in fact makes explicit provision for such transfers. So all of the breathless, tick-tock coverage—”at 2:32, $20,399 was transferred in; at 2:47, $20,399 was transferred out“—is beside the point. Notwithstanding the titillating name, there is nothing illegal or unusual in such “in and out” transfers.

My point is not to exonerate the Conservatives. It is rather to suggest that this is hardly the sort of cut-and-dried case of “electoral fraud” the opposition, and it seems large sections of the media, have decided it is. It is indeed, as the Conservative talking points insist, a dispute about accounting standards, and shifting standards at that: as of 2006, Elections Canada’s “Handbook for Candidates” really did seem to allow, in the judgment of the Federal Court, the very practices that are now in dispute.

And they didn’t plead guilty; they decided to drop the Supreme Court appeal and pay a fine. Maybe they think there are more important things to do, like running a country.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Leaffan

And they didn’t plead guilty; they decided to drop the Supreme Court appeal and pay a fine. Maybe they think there are more important things to do, like running a country.

Tories plead guilty in campaign financing case

Is there some other definition of “plead guilty” that I’m not aware of? Oh wait, here it is:

But the Conservative party, in its long-running and fierce legal and public relations battle with Elections Canada, shrugged off the guilty pleas and said the deal struck with the federal director of public prosecutions was a “big victory.”

So I guess that they did not plead guilty. They had a “big victory”.

[Leaffan]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Tories plead guilty in campaign financing case

Is there some other definition of “plead guilty” that I’m not aware of? Oh wait, here it is:

So I guess that they did not plead guilty. They had a “big victory”.

Here:

The Conservative Party of Canada says it is “agreeing to disagree” with Elections Canada and is dropping an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the federal agency’s interpretation of election spending law.

The move is connected to the so-called ‘in-and-out’ scandal which saw the party plead guilty in late 2011 to overspending on advertising in the 2006 election campaign and violating Canada’s electoral law.

“The Conservative Party of Canada plays by the same rules as everyone else; we acted under the law as it was understood at that time,” said Fred DeLorey, Conservative party spokesman, in an email.

“We are agreeing to disagree and will be dropping our appeal to the Supreme Court. We are amending our return under protest to reflect this.”

I guess they pleaded guilty to overspending only, but not to the “in and out” scheme. It’s pretty confusing actually.

[Grey]

Hell I could have written this bit “I have no particular sympathy for the Tories. Their deceitful, bullying behaviour, from the day they took office, makes it just deserts that no one believes them now”.

And that’s the underlying problem.

[mnemosyne]

“Others have done it too” is a bullshit defence and I am sick and tired of hearing it used to justify questionable and possibly illegal behaviour by any political party.

IT WAS WRONG THEN, IT IS WRONG NOW.

They have done illegal things and are suspected of doing more illegal things. Will you deny that for the sake of defending “your” party? So many people attack the Liberals for being a bunch of criminals, but downplay and deny the fact that a bunch of Conservatives are also already known to be criminals too. Why is that? Is it not even remotely possible that some or all of this particular group of people who claim to share your values might actually be a bunch of lying cheating shitbags (which is my assumption dealing with most politicians, to be honest)?
sigh, sorry Leaffan I don’t want to take it out on you - but I’ve read a ton of articles and commentary on this and so far, that’s the “defence” I’m seeing the most from supporters of the Conservative party. “Others did it too”, “sore losers”, “shut up and let them run the country”… I’m tired of it.

Even if they are 100% innocent, they are acting like they are guilty of something, and even that is frustrating me.

[Dr_Doom]

Is it even remotely possible that Randy Carlyle is somehow responsible for some of the Pittsburgh Penguins’ success?

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1142405--mario-lemieux-statue-unveiled-by-pittsburgh-penguins

[Leaffan]

@mnemosyne

“Others have done it too” is a bullshit defence and I am sick and tired of hearing it used to justify questionable and possibly illegal behaviour by any political party.

IT WAS WRONG THEN, IT IS WRONG NOW.

From above: “To my knowledge, no one disputes this: Sect. 404 (2.1) of the Canada Elections Act in fact makes explicit provision for such transfers.” Here’s what the act says.

Exclusion for funds – registered parties, registered associations and candidates

(2.1) A transfer of funds is permitted and is not a contribution for the purposes of this Act if it is

(a) from a registered party to an electoral district association of the party;

(b) from a registered association to the party with which it is affiliated or another registered association of the party;

(c) from a candidate endorsed by a registered party to the party or a registered association of the party; or

(d) from a candidate to himself or herself in his or her capacity as a nomination contestant in respect of the same election.

They have done illegal things and are suspected of doing more illegal things. Will you deny that for the sake of defending “your” party? So many people attack the Liberals for being a bunch of criminals, but downplay and deny the fact that a bunch of Conservatives are also already known to be criminals too. Why is that? Is it not even remotely possible that some or all of this particular group of people who claim to share your values might actually be a bunch of lying cheating shitbags (which is my assumption dealing with most politicians, to be honest)?

Some probably are. yep.

sigh, sorry Leaffan I don’t want to take it out on you - but I’ve read a ton of articles and commentary on this and so far, that’s the “defence” I’m seeing the most from supporters of the Conservative party. “Others did it too”, “sore losers”, “shut up and let them run the country”… I’m tired of it.

Even if they are 100% innocent, they are acting like they are guilty of something, and even that is frustrating me.

The media is like a pack of rabid hyenas and well grab onto anything and run with it for a story. They weren’t any different on the sponsorship scandal either. Politicians are always playing the system and walking on the edge of the law.

I do really wish that all of them would focus on the big picture. Let the investigations take their due course.

[Northern_Piper]

From the article Leaffan linked to:

That case was resolved last year after the Conservative Party and the Conservative Fund Canada pleaded guilty to two reduced Elections Act offences in an Ottawa courtroom after forging an agreement with Crown prosecutors.

I know that “forging” has this meaning, but in this particular context of allegations of shady conduct, I think the editor could have substituted a different word. :eek:

[Northern_Piper]

@Leaffan

And they didn’t plead guilty; they decided to drop the Supreme Court appeal and pay a fine.

well, again from the article you cited:

That case was resolved last year after the Conservative Party and the Conservative Fund Canada pleaded guilty to two reduced Elections Act offences in an Ottawa courtroom after forging an agreement with Crown prosecutors.

They paid a fine because they pled guilty to two Elections Act offences.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Northern_Piper

They paid a fine because they pled guilty to two Elections Act offences.

Well it’s probably the Liberals fault. Or Elections Canada. Or George Soros. I have lost track of who the scapegoat is today.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Whoops Leaffan, you had better move fast to keep up with the Harper Government’s positions with regard to Elections Canada.

Now, it’s not about the money

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, in a sudden flip-flop, have revealed they are prepared to support giving more investigative powers to Canada’s chief electoral officer.

Just a day earlier, the government had adopted a different position, insisting that its MPs on a parliamentary committee had blocked a move to give new audit powers to Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand because it would add expenses to the elections agency’s budget.

Wow, that’s great! Now Elections Canada will have the teeth to properly investigate what is currently going on!

Hold on, not so fast:

The motion calls from legislation within six months to provide strengthened powers to Elections Canada.

Legislation within six months. Ya, that’s given me a heaping helping of confidence.

[orcenio]

@RickJay

Why on earth would they want to?

You can’t kick him out of office at all, that’s illegal. You could kick him out of the party, but that’s just a PR disaster. No matter how big a jerk Anders is, for the party to interfere in his being the riding nomination and forcing someone else down their throats would be a PR disaster. It’s the sort of thing you’d expect from the Liberals. I’m pretty sure it’d be difficult to do without the approval of Stephen Harper himself, and Harper would be immediately portrayed (with some justification) as bullying the people of Calgary West into accepting a candidate they didn’t want. You’d also weaken loyalty in your own party; if Harper demonstrates that he’ll kick people out of the CPC because he doesn’t like them, 160+ MPs are going to wonder when they’re next. And that’s when they start plotting against Harper.

Furthermore you’d have the guy sitting in the Opposition benches being a thorn in your side until the next election.

It’d be a gigantic fiasco.

They didn’t get a PR disaster by expelling (much beloved) Bill Casey in 2007 (well, no disaster west of NS).

[orcenio]

@orcenio

They didn’t get a PR disaster by expelling (much beloved) Bill Casey in 2007 (well, no disaster west of NS).

Helena Guergis was drummed out too, for unspecified and unnamed allegations (which turned out to be a bunch of hokum); where was the fiasco there?

[Northern_Piper]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Legislation within six months. Ya, that’s given me a heaping helping of confidence.

In the federal Parliament, passing a bill in six months is warp speed. Two Years is not uncommon.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

The Vancouver Playhouse is closing tomorrow night. What a loss for the city, the province and for the country.

[Uzi]

Never heard of it.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

Vancouver is the largest city in the province of British Columbia, and the third largest Census Metropolitan Area in Canada.

It is a major cultural centre in the country, being the home of world class cultural institutions such as the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, Vancouver Opera and the Vancouver Playhouse Theatre Company.

So Vancouver just lost a world class theatre company that brought honour to all Canadians, and therefore became less of a nice place to live.

[Ibanez]

Trudeau vs. Brazeau.

I say Brazeau plays with him for the first round and finishes it early in the second.
That poster for the fight is hillarious. Special skills: Drama, handsomeness. Ha !