• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

stegner said:
Btw.  Thanks to Prime Minister Chretien for bravely changing the law in the first place and taking big business out of the electoral process in a big way.   

Mr Chretien bravely changed the rules to undercut Mr Martin, and long term consequences (i.e. the inability of the party to raise funds) be damned!

Mr Harper, as you say, campaigned under different rules. Claiming there is some sort of scandal seems to be the MO for virtually everything the opposition does these days; I say Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we will all be happy to see your documentation. I believe the government house leader has said that the election financing technique known as "in and out" is used by all parties; if true then we should be left to wonder where are the high profile raids on other party offices? The CPC has said they are prepared to defend their interpretation of the Elections Act in a court of law, which is a much higher bar than the court of public opinion, the MSM or (God forbid!) the HRC.......

 
I believe the government house leader has said that the election financing technique known as "in and out" is used by all parties; if true then we should be left to wonder where are the high profile raids on other party offices?

He has indeed said this.  But he is making a very misleading statement.  The methods of the CPC of transferring large sums of money into accounts at the local level only to transfer them out in a rapid fashion while subsequently making the statement that those funds (which had originated from the central party were local funds) was NOT used by the other parties.  Elections Canada refused to reimburse the CPC  for the 'local expenses' and they sued that organization.  Elections Canada will see them in court on that matter.  However, the investigation about the raid is too see if the federal party exceeded spending on the national campaign. 
 
So what was Elections Canada's desicion? This seems to have fallen off the radar.
 
Making words mean whatever they want.......

http://conservativequeen.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberals-accuse-conservatives-of_05.html

Liberals Accuse Conservatives of Misleading in Order to Cover their Efforts to Mislead

The Liberal Party's website has a press release from yesterday which attempts to mislead Canadians about the Canada Elections Act and its legal obligations. Either the Liberal Party doesn't understand the Elections Act, hasn't even read it, or just hopes that Canadians are too stupid to understand it themselves.

Rather than admitting that they have contravened the Canada Elections Act by not repaying leadership campaign loans on time, they pretend that they are under no obligation to do so within the 18 month prescribed period.

They claim that: "In fact the rules are clearly spelled out the Canada Election Act in Section 435.29. A number of people are under the impression that June 3 is a debt repayment deadline. In fact, the Elections Act allows candidates to honour binding agreements to pay beyond the 18-month period. The June 3 deadline is not a 'repayment' deadline at all."

How can the Liberals claim that June 3 is not a repayment deadline when the Elections Act [s. 435.24 (1)] clearly states a leadership debt "must be paid within 18 months after the end of the leadership contest." To pretend that the phrase 'must be paid with in' does not constitute a repayment deadline is sheer lunacy.

Furthermore, the Act [s. 435.26 (1)] states that an extension may be granted if the Chief Electoral Officer is "satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so." This is not an automatically granted extension as the Liberal press release seems to indicate. I find it laughable also that the Liberal Party seems to think that 'reasonable grounds' for an extension include inability to pay due to lack of support, lack of fundraising, and general poverty of the Liberal Party and its former leadership candidates.

I suggest that the Liberal Party actually read the Canada Elections Act in full prior to making erroneous claims about the Act and its provisions for the repayment of debts by leadership candidates

So the real question is what is Elections Canada doing about this?
 
Again, I would make a bigger deal if Stephen Harper had followed the same rules for his leadership campaign.  He didn't so maybe he and the Conservatives should not claim moral superiority since 'he' and 'they' was able to use big business.  Again apples and oranges.  As said before he wants to retroactively apply the new rules to his campaign to prove that he is more accountable I would applaud him-otherwise the Conservatives should concentrate on governing and let the opposition make fools of themselves.  Though the government has been doing a pretty good job of that itself.   
 
Jeezus, man, do you ever stop?  You don't like Harper or the Conservatives, we get that.  Find a new set of drapes to shred, will ya?  ::)
 
At the risk of getting back on topic: No one wants an election now, maybe not any time in 2008 -

1. The Liberals are broke and, despite recent efforts to paper over the cracks, deeply divided;

2. The Bloc is terrified of being reduced to rump status. It needs time to rebuild and recast its message to Québecers;

3. Ditto the NDP, but it needs to recast its message to almost everyone living beyond Trinity-Spadina; and

4. The Conservative brand and Prime Minister Harper’s reputation for honesty and political savvy are damaged – through his own fault and the fault of his PMO. The media is not to blame. Harper had a real media honeymoon back in 2006; the media fell all over themselves gushing about his political acumen and personal probity. He and Sandra Buckler screwed the pooch and gave the media reason after reason to dislike them and all their works. Then he buggered up the business art of political cabinet-making and now it looks like he has dropped some of the few balls he was carrying.

I’m looking for an election in 2009 – probably on 19 Oct 09, as specified in law.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
At the risk of getting back on topic: No one wants an election now, maybe not any time in 2008 -

1. The Liberals are broke and, despite recent efforts to paper over the cracks, deeply divided;

2. The Bloc is terrified of being reduced to rump status. It needs time to rebuild and recast its message to Québecers;

3. Ditto the NDP, but it needs to recast its message to almost everyone living beyond Trinity-Spadina; and

4. The Conservative brand and Prime Minister Harper’s reputation for honesty and political savvy are damaged – through his own fault and the fault of his PMO. The media is not to blame. Harper had a real media honeymoon back in 2006; the media fell all over themselves gushing about his political acumen and personal probity. He and Sandra Buckler screwed the pooch and gave the media reason after reason to dislike them and all their works. Then he buggered up the business art of political cabinet-making and now it looks like he has dropped some of the few balls he was carrying.

I’m looking for an election in 2009 – probably on 19 Oct 09, as specified in law.

This is probably the best assessment that I have seen on this thread thus far, and very likely not to far off the mark.
 
stegner said:
Again, I would make a bigger deal if Stephen Harper had followed the same rules for his leadership campaign.

I am curious. Since he followed the rules in place at the time, what is the problem?

You want to retroactively apply today's rules, so may I suggest you allow the Canadian Revenue Agency to audit your 1999 tax return but using the laws, rules and regulations in force today? If you see a problem with a retroactive audit using different sets of rules, then you see why your suggestion is also problematic (to say the least).
 
I am curious. Since he followed the rules in place at the time, what is the problem?

Sure.  There would be no problem were it not for Harper making one.  Moreover, Harper should not pretend that he would not be having the same difficulties if he would be following the new rules.   Under the new rules, he would not be able to take as much money from big oil or other corporations in the west, which would place him in a similar position to Dion.   So he should stop pretending that he is superior, because his supposed superiority is derived from the old rules.  I also think it laughable that a guy who never disclosed who donated to him would be critiquing others on leadership election.     

Jeezus, man, do you ever stop?  You don't like Harper or the Conservatives, we get that.  Find a new set of drapes to shred, will ya?   

I don't like Harper. I don't mind Conservatives.  I was responding to an off-topic comment that I did not initiate.  Again, to get back on topic as E.R Campbell suggests.

This is probably the best assessment that I have seen on this thread thus far, and very likely not to far off the mark.

I fully agree.  I suspect that even if Harper wanted to go to Rideau Hall this fall and ask Her Excellency to dissolve Parliament that she would tell him to wait a year until October 19, 2009 as prescribed by law.  The government kind of shot itself in the foot by passing that law.  I suspect as bad as things are for them now they will only get worse, unless the PM can articulate a vision if where he want to take this country.   



Edited to update the thread title
 
E.R. Campbell said:
At the risk of getting back on topic: No one wants an election now, maybe not any time in 2008 -

1. The Liberals are broke and, despite recent efforts to paper over the cracks, deeply divided;

...

I’m looking for an election in 2009 – probably on 19 Oct 09, as specified in law.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an article from today’s Globe and Mail that illustrates the divisions in the Liberal Party of Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080606.welection07/BNStory/National/home
Dion rejects Liberal pleas to trigger election

CAMPBELL CLARK AND BRIAN LAGHI

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
June 7, 2008 at 12:08 AM EDT

OTTAWA — Ranking members of the Liberal caucus this week repeatedly pushed Stéphane Dion to trigger a federal election campaign next week, but the Liberal Leader rebuffed their pleas, sources say.

The tables have turned since last October, when MPs and staffers talked Mr. Dion out of his desire to bring down Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government; this time, it was the party leader who rejected the idea.

With the scandal over former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier setting the Conservatives on the defensive and concerns about an economic downturn, a heavyweight group of the party's most influential MPs argued in internal meetings this week that the Liberals have a window of opportunity for an election.

They included foreign affairs critic Bob Rae, Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff, House Leader Ralph Goodale, Whip Karen Redman, finance critic John McCallum, and justice critic Dominic LeBlanc, according to multiple Liberal sources.

MPs and advisers close to Mr. Dion, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Rae and others not aligned with former leadership contenders told The Globe and Mail that despite several entreaties – and perhaps more to come – the Liberal Leader has been adamant. “It's dead, dead, dead,” said one.

There were rumours that ranking MPs were trying to organize a meeting with Mr. Dion Sunday night to press for a snap election, but well-placed sources said Mr. Dion will be at his cottage for the weekend and has no plans to take part in a meeting.

But Mr. Dion is running against the views of most of his caucus leadership.

Mr. McCallum made a strenuous appeal for a quick election in a face-to-face meeting on Thursday, despite earlier rebuffs, sources said.

On Monday, Mr. Rae and Mr. Goodale pleaded the case at a meeting of the party's priorities and planning committee, they said.

Mr. Dion explained that he wanted to spend the summer selling the Liberals green-tax plan, which includes tax levies on carbon fuels designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. “Stéphane dismissed it immediately,” a source said.

Two days later, at the party's weekly caucus meeting, outgoing MP John Godfrey also recommended bringing the government down.

The plan would have seen the Liberals defeat the government early next week, in time for a mid-July election date. Tory officials said Friday that the Commons will vote Monday on Bill C-50, the Budget Implementation Act, which is a confidence matter.

Those agitating for an early vote argued that more time will give Mr. Harper an opportunity to regain political momentum by shuffling his cabinet, announcing new policies, attacking the Liberals with advertising – and possibly proroguing Parliament to delay the fall Commons session and limit the opportunities for triggering a pre-Christmas election.

Although some MPs who back an early election insist they accept the leader's right to decide, others in the party argued that Mr. Dion is isolated and expressed frustration at again passing on an election campaign out of fear they are not ready.

Mr. Dion's campaign co-chair Mark Marissen and campaign director Gordon Ashworth were also against forcing a snap election, sources said.

Although some close to Mr. Dion said that suddenly changing tacks to launch an election campaign within a few days would create problems for organizing a campaign tour, they insisted those concerns were secondary to broader strategic ones.

For one thing, there is little sense that the public is clamouring for a summer election, and the party would have to offer a reason. And they acknowledge the party needs a better plan to boost low support in Quebec.

More broadly, one adviser said, Mr. Dion must use the summer not only to sell his green plan, but to hone his skills at communicating it so he can use it to counter Tory attacks that he is a weak leader.

Defending the controversial plan could raise respect for Mr. Dion's mettle, if he is seen fighting for a bold policy idea despite the political risks, they said.

In addition to the Liberals’ well known financial woes, I see three important issues:

1. “Defending the controversial plan could raise respect for Mr. Dion's mettle, if he is seen fighting for a bold policy idea despite the political risks”; but

2. “More time will give Mr. Harper an opportunity to regain political momentum by shuffling his cabinet, announcing new policies, attacking the Liberals with advertising – and possibly proroguing Parliament to delay the fall Commons session and limit the opportunities for triggering a pre-Christmas election”; and

3. Above all, “there is little sense that the public is clamouring for a summer election”.

For all those reasons, and ohers, I still think 19 Oct 09 is the most likely election date.



 
Indeed.  I am troubled though by the rumors of the proroguing of Parliament until November.  That sort of behaviour is suitable for banana republics not a democracy, especially one with a strong commitment to responsible government.  Will we start to see governance through order-in-council instead of legislation? Are we returning to the strategies employed by Mackenzie King where there were so many orders-in-council that the Governor General would sign the top of the stacks of them claiming that his signature would soak down to the bottom? 
 
The other big problem with the Liberal Party is they cannot seem to get organized and execute a plan. Consider that Mr Dion has floated the idea of a carbon tax for a while and the idea that they will spend the summer selling a carbon tax to the public (during bbq season; how ironic!), yet the CPC is still first off the mark in defining the issue.

Given the Liberal party seems to have no funds, no ideas and no leadership, October 2009 is indeed the most likely date for an election. My big fear is that an unorganized and ineffectual opposition will eventually lead to complacency on the government bench (see the record from 1993-2005), which is equally bad for Canadians:

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-tory-ad-campaign.html

New Tory ad campaign

It looks like the Tories will define the new dion proposede carbon tax before dion can. The grits want to call this a "green shift". It would be a huge tax grab. It will increase the price of everything and increase GST revenues. It is yet another tax from the grits.

But it is intended, Conservative officials insisted while giving the Sunday Sun an exclusive sneak peak at the campaign, to let voters know Dion's carbon tax plan will raise the price of everything Canadians buy including gas and electricity.

"They're preparing to institute the mother of all tax increases," a Conservative source told the Sun. "Green shift (the name Liberals give it), these are weasel words."

Conservative MP Jason Kenney said Dion's carbon tax has nothing to do with the environment, although it will be wrapped in green packaging
 
Yet another reason to believe the election will happen in October 2009: the Liberal Party will have no funds to fight the election after being drubbed in the court system. The now have two potentially expensive lawsuits on their hands, and even if they win, there are still lots of legal expenses to deal with:

http://rightoncourse.blogspot.com/2008/07/another-possible-lawsuit-against.html

Another Lawsuit For the Liberals?

The legal battle over Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party's infringement on the trademark name of Green Shift Inc. for Dion's carbon tax plan is heating up further. After ignoring the cease and desist request that was issued last week by the environmental firm, Dion and the Liberals' true arrogance on the matter is becoming even more glaring. Stephane Dion has now gone on record as saying that the Liberals pose no threat to the company in stealing their trademark, and that "it will be okay".

What arrogance! With that kind of arrogance, contempt for intellectual property rights, and ignoring a legal cease and desist request, Dion and the liberals truly deserve to get sued by Green Shift Inc. And that's what appears will be the case now as the company's founder has indicated that they will be proceeding with legal action, that if successful, could see the Liberals paying hefty damages.

I wrote yesterday about how the lawsuit by the Prime Minister could deal a devastating, if not lethal, blow to the Liberals' finances. But the fact that the Liberals are likely going to be fighting two separate lawsuits now that Green Shift has indicated that they are going to sue, makes the financial situation even more precarious for the Grits. It may even lead to the situation where they may be forced to declare bankruptcy.

Other financial issues include the unpaid loans for the leadership convention (which are now considered illegal campaign contributions), and of course someone will eventually come looking for the $40 million unaccounted for in ADSCAM.
 
Has Dion paid back his loans yet, or did he cut a deal with Elections Canada? Just wonderin'.
 
recceguy said:
Has Dion paid back his loans yet, or did he cut a deal with Elections Canada? Just wonderin'.

You can hear the sounds of chirping crickets from the MSM on that issue................





edit for spelling
 
Thucydides said:
Making words mean whatever they want.......

http://conservativequeen.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberals-accuse-conservatives-of_05.html

So the real question is what is Elections Canada doing about this?
The answer was a whisper in the news today here:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080728/elections_liberals_080728/20080728?hub=Canada
OTTAWA -- Elections Canada has accepted debt paydown agreements totalling nearly $1.4 million from eight Liberals who ran for the party leadership in 2006.
But Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand is still reviewing a paydown plan submitted by party leader Stephane Dion.
Dion, whose debt from the campaign was recently reported at more than $800,000, had the largest outstanding obligations from the campaign.
Toronto MP Ken Dryden was next, with $300,000 in loans to repay, all to himself as the lender, by June 3.
Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff had a debt of $187,000.
Under federal election law, the candidates had 18 months to arrange paydown agreements acceptable to Elections Canada, or the debts would have been converted into campaign contributions.
I've put the emphasis on the last sentence.  Why weren't the debts converted into campaign contributions?



 
If the debts were converted to campaign contributions, what does that do?

Can you imagine any of these wannabe leaders (Dion included) itching to have an election this coming fall......with what?
 
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
The answer was a whisper in the news today here:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080728/elections_liberals_080728/20080728?hub=CanadaI've put the emphasis on the last sentence.  Why weren't the debts converted into campaign contributions?

Elections Canada helping the "Natural Governing Party" avoid bankruptcy. ::)
 
Back
Top