Harper Tories Should Tread Carefully on Elections Canada Issue - Nik's Sun Media Column

My wife is the CFO for a Conservative MP.
We have had a lot of back and forth with Elections Canada ....some of it downright sily.
However they call the shots and we abide by them....and our MP's financials for the last election have passed their audit.[ It took them 18 months]
It is our belief that Elections Canada , which seems to have turned a blind eye to the Liberal's past excesses , is determined to undermine the Harper Government .
WHY?
Not because the Conservative MP's are dishonest .
Who appointed or hired those who run Elections Canada ?
Guess !
blessings

[updated Mon Sep 10 17:59:11 EDT 2007]

I think Dion and the Liberals are also staking out trust and accountability with the populace although it might take longer in Quebec to show up in popular voting intentions.

Jack Layton has not done anything to warrant any move up in voting intentions and if his candidate loses Outremont, which he should by a large percentage, then his stock will stay down. The bloc are opportunists and could actually benefit the Liberals by holding back the CPC if the campaign money "affair" becomes a major issue there.

Harper's credibility is generally starting to weaken, in my opinion, and if this problem becomes a major issue he will surely drop considerably in the polls. Dion has been patiently waiting for an issue of confidence that would force the other parties to vote with him to topple Harper and this could be it.

[updated Mon Sep 10 18:02:17 EDT 2007]

The timing could not be better to question the common sense and practices of Elections Canada. I can't wait to see how many people turn up at the upcoming by-elections wearing birkas et al and this at a time when our Quebec Commission is examining the accommodation of immigrants in our province. Oh yes and it was just announced that one of the commissioners (Mr. Taylor) can't show up for the 4 first audiences due to a "fore arm" operation. I guess "subs" are not allowed at these important inquiries into public opinion...........cheeech!

[updated Mon Sep 10 18:21:04 EDT 2007]

I believe it is no coincidence with the Prime Minister's outrage over electoral procedures regarding facial covering follows so closely on the tail of the reports that CPC may have exceeded election spending limits. In close parallel to the behaviour of the government during question period, it would seem that the preferred defence is a spirited attack on those who would dare question Canada's New Government.

[updated Mon Sep 10 18:35:48 EDT 2007]

This issue with Elections Canada is just another example of the Harper Conservatives saying one thing and doing another. I think the Canadian public is beginning to see an obvious pattern of behaviour starting to develop.

- Not claiming $530,000 raised at the Conservative 2005 Convention and being caught by Elections Canada, then paying it back. They then tried to change the rules and were thwarted by the NDP.

- Complaining about the non-elected Senate, then appointing Fortier and putting him in charge of Public Works and outside of scrutiny. Recently over $1Billion in government buildings were sold off with no public oversight.

- Jason Kenney exploding in the House of Commons about Liberal abuses with the use of Challenger jets, claiming they cost $11,000 per hour to run when the Liberals were in power. Now the Conservatives are expensing the use of these same jets at $1,500 per hour.

- Harper's government paid image advisor.

- Cancelling all of Dion's environmental initiatives, then renaming many of them with less funding and calling them Conservative programs.

Just a few examples out of a long string. I agree with Nick that it will be difficult for the Liberals to fight the next election on ethics, although Dion does have a very clean reputation which could help quite a bit. Since the Conservatives ran a single issue campaign on ethics in the last election anything like this issue with Elections Canada could hit them hard with the voting public.

I think the lustre is dropping off Harper fairly quickly these days. When under stress he has quite an over-the-top combative and partisan style which I believe only appeals to hard core Reform/neoCons. If Harper continues to drop in the polls I would predict that he will become more vicious in his attacks - and quite possibility seriously hurt his slipping image in the process.

The key to the next election for the Liberals is to present a well thought out and integrated platform that addresses the environment, social justice, and solid economic performance - and position Dion as an open, rational man that can be trusted. I don't think he can ever be packaged as charasmatic - there is not enough money in the coffers or enough brilliant image consultants to pull that one off!

Perhaps the next election will be fought over substance, not the emotion that the Adscam issue generated. If that is the case I would predict a Liberal minority government.

[updated Mon Sep 10 18:37:54 EDT 2007]

The timing of this opinion piece is suspect - exactly one week away from three important byelections in Quebec. It could be seen as an attempt to shift support away from the Conservative party to opposition parties in these upcoming byelections (as you point out, the Bloc, the NDP could gain - and just how could the Liberals lose? I didn't quite follow your line of thought there) - on an issue that is 'internal' to the Tories and not one that has any bearing on the conduct or honesty of the party with public funds. And of course exactly one month away from the Ontario provincial election - the writ just dropped.

Your article states 'the emerging story from Elections Canada, which tracks the movement of funds between the central Tory campaign and local riding associations, should give the Harper Conservatives pause'. I agree - if an error was made then it should be corrected - but to compare this type of impropriety, if indeed there was one, to the sponsership scandal is ridiculous to the extreme. Your article states 'Regardless of whether anything improper was done or not, the Conservatives should be wary of any perception that they worked around the intent of the rules'. Therefore, you admit it's entirely possible nothing improper occurred. Yet you choose to take a healthy part in promoting such 'perceptions' - and to air this topic one week away from three crucial Quebec byelections and a month away from the Ontario provincial election.

You say 'The political house built on trust could be rocked' - I agree, when influential pollsters are throwing the rocks.

[updated Mon Sep 10 18:42:52 EDT 2007]

The trust issue is fundamental for citizens relating to politicians and breeds their cynicism. It has been beaten to death by too many individuals and events as of late. The Harper Cons seem to think that if their electoral fiscal sins involved less dollars than the Chretien Liberals tht they should get points for that.

It is hard to think of a single social or economic institution from business, to churches and religion to educational institutions to politics and even the judicial system that has not breached or betrayed our trust in the past decade or so. Maybe one - the libraries seem to have not screwed up.

I think Harper believe he won the last election. He did not. We took him for a test drive and parked the Liberals for a while. I don't think Harper has sold us the car based on the experiences we have "enjoyed" (sic) with him so far. Look at his inability to movde his poll numbers beyond anaemic. He is not very convincing, especially where being trustworthy is concerned. All you have ot do is look at how he has bastardized his ouw Accountability Act for proof.

As for our trust, he has not earned it. He is definitely found to be wanting when it come to being worthy of even the slightest benefit of the doubt any more.

IMr. Harper goal , of building a house of trust, made for good copy at the time, but then again, what can one say of a goal that are only defined as “aspirational”. After all , to aspire is to soar, to hope, to desire, to wish or to fly to great height. I hope that the winds of change do not make the fall from such height to painful.

Nik---whoever said politics was a clean sport and whoever said the Harper Conservatives, other than themselves, had a corner on the ethics and trust markets? Political memories are notoriously short. Somewhere in the distant past Harper said he would not follow those unethical governments of the past with patronage appointments and brought in the much needed Accountability Act to be proclaimed January 1st, 2007.---BUT Harper did an end run around his own legislation with "Patronage flood pushed through" (newspaper headlines) AFTER the House adjourned for Christmas last. To name a few patronage appointments---Barbara McDougall, Ian McCllenand, Gilles Guenette, John Hamm, all Conservatives ! ! ! A double standard ? You tell me.

On the dust up with Elections Canada over political financing rules, Jean-Pierre Kingsley resigned on February 17 so we assume there is a Conservative appointee at the helm of Elections Canada and the problems for the Conservatives continue.

Trust you say------well, I do not trust this government to give us the truth about Afghanistan and I am suspicious about the awarding of large defence contracts, to name a few. I am suspicious of Harper with his fundamentalist religious leanings and what his government may try to do about supposedly "dead" social issues---abortion, same sex unions---should he gain a majority. The Ontario Conservatives and their "faith based" funding proposals are stirring the political pot and it seems to me a provincial Conservative is a federal Conservative. Our Prime Ministers of the past carefully maintained a gulf between church and state-----what are we heading into today??---a mini theocracy? Scarey.

Harper is very much in control of his caucus and cabinet who all appear to march in "lock step". Cross him and you are politically dead. To me it is surprising how strongly Harper governs almost as a one man government in a minority situation. I believe he can only act this way when the opposition is weak and undirected but I am equally sure the opposition will exploit every flaw in the shining Conservative armor.

As Mulroney said in his CTV interview on Saturday last, once in power, the government will use every device available to them to stay in power as long as possible. I am pleased with the minority position Harper holds in the governance of Canada.

I think we will never be rid of election funding scandals as long as political parties are constantly trying to raise money. I believe that all elections and leadership campaigns should be publicly funded, and that it should be illegal for any individual or oragnization to contribute to a political party.

A formula would have to be established that was fair to all parties, providing them with realistic funding based on current public support but didn't simply reward the party which won the most support last time, and didn't shut out new or smaller parties either.

One idea I heard was that all parties would be guaranteed a minimum amount, and in addition every taxpayer would be required to pay a small fixed amount (e.g. $20) as a mandatory party contribution on their income tax. No matter what, you have to pay $20, however you can choose the party to whom it goes. This would be the sole income source for all political parties, and there would be no need for private fund raising. Yes, I'm sure better public funding arrangements could be devised - can you suggest one?

Had this been in place, there would have been no "Mr Five Percents" in the Mulroney days, no Quebec Sponsorship Scandal in the Martin days, no five year olds donating their college funds to Joe Volpe's campaign and and no muttering about whether the Conservatives are up to no good today.

In addition, parties who know their funding is to some extent tied to public approval, might strive to respect the voting public more than they frequently seem to.

My $0.02

Tim

TRUST is an issue that resounds for a couple of weeks around election time. The Liberals broke the GST promise, yet Sheila Copps who resigned on that very promise was promptly elected. As you rightly pointed out Harper rightly scores highest on the trust and ethics front. But what about the TRUSTS (I fully support the decision), or David Emerson or Afghanistan. Though a lot of people may agree with some of the things that Harper has done his attitude of "my way or the highway", his tight control of his cabinet, ( after the last reshuffle we did not hear a word from any of the new ministers). He treats them like a bunch of 10 year old players. The coach tells them which position to play and that is it. Like it or lump it. Harper seems genuine in his desire to do the right thing however ideology, expediency and his belief in his omniscience, coupled with a desire, no matter how wrong, to have his own way will prevent Canadians from giving him a majority. Witness the latest change in his stance at APEC. A couple of months ago he talked of a consensus on Afghanistan. Now it appears if he has a majority the Afghan mission will be extended.

With all due respect, I can’t see this as having impact your article suggests. On the scale of impacts, if the sponsorship scandal was a 10 this would be a 2 or perhaps a 3, in my opinion. The RCMP investigation announcement had such a big impact due to a number of unique circumstances – the sponsorship scandal; a very poor first half for the Liberal campaign; and, not least of which was it being made public in the middle of an election campaign. So, to determine the impact one should look at the context. If the Liberals can make it one of the bricks in building a case, then it may be supportive of something that has the type of impact your article suggests. But then would it have the traction to carry over to the next election? Prob not, there will be lots of bigger issues for the voters to sink their teeth into, in my opinion.

I think the biggest impact may very well be that the Conservatives not play it so fast and loose in the next election, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Lloyd MacIlquham

[updated Tue Sep 11 12:41:11 EDT 2007]

How do we find air heads like this Mayrand at Elections Canada, Parliament makes the Laws, not this arrogant fool!

NIK GET IT RIGHT, DION NEVER, EVER HAD A CHANCE!

THAT HE HAS FAILED IS PARTLY HIS FAULT,FOR ENTERING THE LEADERSHIP
CAMPAIGN AND THEN STAYING IN THE RACE WHEN HE WAS OUTMATCHED. THAT HE WAS AND WILL BE REMEMBERED AS ILL PREPARED.

TO ASSUME HE WAS BETTER SUITED THAN THE OTHER FRONT RUNNERS
PROVES HE LACKS THOSE CHARACTERISTICS SO NECCESARY WHEN
ATTEMPTING TO RUN AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN OR A PARTY FOR THAT
MATTER!
SOMETIMES THOSE IN "T.O.M MIX" ARE FIXATED ON PERSUING THE DECOY
AND THAT THEY START THE PROCESS THE NEXT MORNING SHOULD BE APPARENT.MAKE A STATEMENT,THAT MR DION HAS NO MANAGEMENT SKILLS
HE HAS NEVER BEEN A TACTICIAN, NOT A STRATEGIST, WHY, HE WOULD
NOT BE WORTHY OF A SEAT AT A BOARDROOM, LET ALONE BE CEO.
IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE THEN.

THE NEXT ELECTION WILL BE FEBRUARY 2009 !

THE DEACON

It certainly wasn’t a house built on truth. It was built on quick fix, vote-buying retail politics. In fact, it’s looking more and more like a house of cards. On the first day, at the swearing-in ceremony of the “New Government”, the promise breaking began with the appointment of Fortier to the Senate. And so it went on from there. Sure didn’t take long to start smelling like the “Old Government”, the one they ridiculed ad nauseam for the same offense. The CPC would qualify as an item in the Guinness Book of World Records.

Canadians were desperate for change and when the Tories promised they would be different, they took them at their word and voted for them. But, even with the stars aligned in the Party’s favour, the electorate was smart enough to give them minority status only. Now that they realize it was all blather, bluster and B.S., I hope voters will continue to give a resounding “NO” to a majority Conservative government!

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. “TRUST CANADIANS WON’T BE FOOLED AGAIN!

[updated Sun Sep 23 14:05:14 EDT 2007]

Unless they can find some way to regain the political edge they enjoyed two years ago, the Conservatives are in deep trouble if an election is called anytime after this summer. Although Harper's personal numbers remain high, that hasn't translated to his party, which seems to be stuck in the low to mid 30s. Add to that the natural tendency for governments to lose public confidence because they're run by human beings who make mistakes and you have a recipe for a body blow to the Conservatives next time up. And if Flaherty is right and we go into a recession in the next few months, things will not bode well for the Conservatives who will be blamed for mismanaging our finances.
Let's face it. The Conservatives are great strategists and will fight a dirty, to-the-death battle next time up but they aren't overly creative or imaginative. Their big problem right now is they've pretty much played the only hand they had -- Liberals bad, us good -- and they can't seem to find the deck for a new deal.

[updated Mon Feb 25 16:35:54 EST 2008]

nik. is there a glitch in your system? why are we reading posts dated 2007 from a lot of people we have never heard from before. there seems to be a lot of tory bashing taking place so are you trying to influence our opinions with all these new people who seem to be very informed about CPC corruption? I hope the right wingers are all seeing the same things I am. they will obviously learn some a lot here.

[updated Wed Sep 03 14:03:03 EDT 2008]