Tory accomplishments vs HOC misbehaviour, EC unfairness

Remember, we are all in this together.

So, Canadians of all political persuasions, but particularly Conservative Party supporters, need to change the subject in Ottawa. They need to do so by being positive and going on the offensive. Meaning, that instead of watching, reading about or repeating the libelous behaviour of Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament in the House of Commons — including how Speaker Peter Milliken has responded to Conservative points of privilege — we need to concentrate on what the “Harper Government” has accomplished over five years.  

As with the unprofessional behaviour of Liberal and NDP MPs in the House of Commons, we need to ignore the media who are openly partisan and anti-Conservative in the extreme — such as CBC news reporters and on their flagship politics show. No viewers, no readers, no ratings, no advertisers. 

The good news is that the Canadian economy is in great shape. According to the Financial Post, “The Canadian economy ended the year with a bang” and I quote:

The Canadian economy grew by a robust 3.3% annualized in the final three months of 2010, Statistics Canada reported Monday, as exports did the heavy lifting in the quarter. The data suggested the economy ended the year with a bang, as real GDP advanced 0.5% in December on a month-over-month basis.”

Moreover, there is the Elections Canada issue. If EC officials found it necessary to investigate and charge Conservative Party of Canada officials for the “In and Out” scheme allegedly used during the 2006 election campaign, then they should also have treated the Liberal, NDP and Bloc parties the same — because we know they all used the same strategy. In fact, the Bloc invented the scheme during the 2000 election. However, by not doing so, EC officials are undermining the very democratic traditions that put the agency in place in the first place — by displaying a complete lack of fairness and balance. (See, for example, my update below.)  

So, let’s keep in mind that there is plenty of good news at the moment. The Government of Canada, currently under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative caucus, is doing very well. And, perhaps that is the reason for the unfounded attacks it is receiving. Jealousy and the fear that they will get a majority government.

Well, whatever the causes of the latest oppositional hysteria, when combined with the way the publicly funded CBC is providing media coverage, matters are coming very close to anarchy — all the more reason to change the subject by promoting the accomplishments of the Harper Conservative government.

Update: Stephen Taylor has a post showing how the “In and Out” was done by all the parties! Just follow the tiny URL in his Tweet.

17 thoughts on “Tory accomplishments vs HOC misbehaviour, EC unfairness

  1. I dunno,

    Did Oda not screw up by putting a NOT on the report and make it look like CEDA wanted that?

    Is the court wrong that the in and out scandle is not criminal?

    Did Kenny not just get using GOVERNMENT resources for Conservative Party vertures?

    Just sayin does it pass the smell test to you?

    Like

  2. Doug — Yes, Ms Oda added the “not.” It was not tampering or scewing up. That was her right as a Minister. Surely, you know that. The In and Out was done by all the parties. If it was wrong, then they should all be charged. And, you can’t change it now retroactively. The 2006 election is over. Did a Kenny staffer not use letterhead? Yes, but it is not a scandal. A person had to resign. The only thing that doesn’t pass the smell test is the way the opposition and the media are overblowing all these gotcha issues. The sponsorship scandal involved $100 million dollars of which $40 million is still missing – – money that went directly to the Quebec Liberal Party. That is what I call a scandal!

    Would I prefer a coalition government rather than these few mix ups? Not on your life. Read the Financial Post article and my accomplishments. Those are what most Canadians want.

    Like

  3. I wish to make something clear. This is my blog and I am not going to have it used to promote the very gotchas going on in Ottawa. Doug’s comment is the last one I want of that type. I responded to him and I would say pretty much the same thing to anyone else.

    So, I asked in my post that we change the subject to the positive, so that is what I expect on this thread.

    Like

  4. PHEW, THANK YOU! It had to be said and some are just not listening that watching ALL the garbage and then repeating it, is counterproductive.

    Don’t watch, don’t support the networks, don’t support the advertisers!

    Like

  5. Sandy, the 56 billion dollar deficit which the liberals are still echoing about has in fact ben reduced to 30-35 billion dollars.

    One thing for sure, other countries facing financial unstability will call upon PM HARPER and FLAHERTY to help stabilize their economy; that is if Canada doesn’t want the PM. For certain, they have learned alot about the Canadian government and the economy to warrant PM Harper and Flaherty’s help.

    Like

  6. Okay, link to ST post fixed. What happened was I retweeted his post and somehow ended up with the URL for my retweet. A lot of good that did! 😉

    Like

  7. Pingback: Tory Accomplishments « Newsbeat1

  8. “If EC officials found it necessary to investigate and charge Conservative Party of Canada officials for the ‘In and Out’ scheme allegedly used during the 2006 election campaign, then they should also have treated the Liberal, NDP and Bloc parties the same – because we know they all used the same strategy.”

    Sandy, you (and Stephen Taylor) simply have your facts wrong in this case. I find it very frustrating that most of the journalists covering this story seem to want to avoid explaining how the Conservative Party spending practices were different than those of the other parties, but they were–in fact–different. Please allow me to explain.

    All parties transfer money between their national party and local campaigns. All parties use pooled advertizing buys at the local level.

    The Conservative ad buys were different than those of other parties in many ways, but most importantly the ad buys weren’t “expenses incurred to elect candidates” in those campaigns that paid for them because the amount paid by each riding was wasn’t related in anyway to the benefit that those ridings received from the ad buy. The costs weren’t divided equally or based on population size or based on any other objective factor. The national Conservative Party just picked whatever ridings had room under their local spending limits and used them to pay for the ad buys when other ridings–that were paying a much smaller share of the cost, or nothing at all–were clearly intended beneficiaries of the ads.

    For example, Anytown East, Anytown West and Anytown Centre can split the cost of an ad buy that benefits all three local campaigns. The Purple Party of Canada can even give them the money to pay for it. That’s fine–in that case, the share of the ad buy paid by each riding is an expense incurred to elect the Purple Party candidate in that riding.

    But if Purple Party decides that they want to buy more ads in Anytown–say they’ve got a close race in Anytown Centre–so they (a) organize an ad buy, (b) transfer the money to local campaigns to pay for it, (c) produce the content as a purely national message and (d)–here’s the important part–have Anytown East pay 30% of the cost, Anytown West pay 70% and Anytown Centre pay nothing simply because that’s how much each local campaign has left under their spending ceiling, then that 70% paid by Anytown West isn’t an expense incurred to elect their local candidate–it’s just part of a national expense incurred to promote the national party.

    Unlike the lower court–which said rebates could only be denied if charges were filed in this case–the Federal Court of Appeals ruled on the substance of this issue, writing:

    “[The in-and-out scheme was] more of a cost-shifting arrangement than an agreement by the participating candidates to purchase advertisements… the amount reported for a candidate’s share of a pooled advertising expense cannot be arbitrary, or based solely upon the available room under each candidate’s spending limit, but must be reasonably related to the value of the benefits received.”

    http://www.therecord.com/news/canada/article/494960–appeal-ruling-guts-tory-defence-of-election-spending

    Like

  9. Sorry RayK — I just don’t buy the view that the way the Conservatives used the “In and Out, was different than the opposition. It may be the way Liberals, NDP, Bloc and officials at Election Canada try to justify their attacks and lack of fairness, but “In” is in and “Out” is out no matter whether the advertising was to get someone elected at the local level or the party at the national level.

    You write: “The Conservative ad buys were different than those of other parties in many ways, but most importantly the ad buys weren’t “expenses incurred to elect candidates” in those campaigns that paid for them because the amount paid by each riding was wasn’t related in anyway to the benefit that those ridings received from the ad buy. The costs weren’t divided equally or based on population size or based on any other objective factor. The national Conservative Party just picked whatever ridings had room under their local spending limits and used them to pay for the ad buys when other ridings–that were paying a much smaller share of the cost, or nothing at all–were clearly intended beneficiaries of the ads.”

    What an absolute stretch to credibility and a crock! If the “In and Out” wasn’t appropriate for one party, it wasn’t appropriate for the others. Stephen Taylor and I don’t have it wrong. You are just trying to convert an argument into a pretzel when wrong is wrong and fair is fair.

    Like

  10. Sandy, just because the media have given this scandal the name “in and out” doesn’t mean that that’s what was illegal. Transfering money in and out of riding associations or campaigns IS perfectly legal. But that’s like saying that because bank robbers who use clown masks are called “the clown mask robbers” then there must be nothing wrong with what they’ve done because clown masks are legal.

    What the Conservative Party and four of its official are charged with is over spending the $18 million national spending limit by trying to claim that national spending was local spending. Its not the “in and out” part that’s illegal–that was just the technique use to try evade the rules. The other parties transfered money between their national parties and local campaigns, but not to trying to as means to break the law.

    Like

  11. I still don’t buy the illegality of it all RayK. What’s done is done. There is no point to going back over the 2006 election spending rules. Time to move on. And, you’ll find the majority of Canadians feel that way too. Can’t try these folks retroactively even if you’d like to. My bet is the Supremes will either throw it out or ask the CPC or the persons mentioned to pay a fine. As for the opposition — sore losers comes to mind.

    Like

Comments are closed.