The Election Fraud Scheme and Why the Latest Talking Points are Nothing But Hot Air

Harper's latest talking points on the election fraud scheme dubbed the "In and Out" is that he didn't know he was doing anything wrong and once he realized that he was, he stopped the practice. I wonder how far this would get a suspect under this government's "law and order" regime.

"I thought it was OK to rob that bank. There were no signs saying not to, and I promise I won't do it again."

For the prime minister of Canada to suggest that he wasn't aware, that fabricating receipts to get money that you're not entitled to, was illegal, is inexcusable.

And frankly. A lie.

And for the prime minister of Canada to suggest that he didn't know the election laws after spending thousands of dollars to take Elections Canada right to the Supreme Court, so that he could change the election spending laws, in favour of corporations, is inexcusable.

And frankly. A lie.

Harper vs Canada: Practice ‑‑ Stay ‑‑ Federal elections ‑‑ Spending limits ‑‑ Plaintiff granted interlocutory injunction against enforcement of third‑party spending limits pending decision on his constitutional challenge to legislation ‑‑ Whether injunction should be stayed.

The respondent sought a declaration that the provisions in the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, imposing limits on third‑party spending on advertising in the course of a federal election campaign are unconstitutional because they unjustifiably limit the right of free expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He would probably know the election laws in this country better than almost anyone.

But when he lost an opportunity in court to change those laws, he just decided that when given the chance, he would simply break them.

And he got caught.

And raking Marc Maynard over the coals suggesting that he has a vendetta against Stephen Harper because he referred to his department as "the jackasses at Elections Canada" and took them to court is nonsense. Maynard wasn't even with Elections Canada then.

Which brings us to the fabrication of invoices. Basic law. Everyone knows that if you present fake invoices to get a larger income tax rebate, and get caught, you will be in trouble and probably go to jail. This is what may happen to the four conspirators already charged.

They can't use ignorance as a defense. This was willful and calculated.

Another thing to note, is that when the Conservatives challenged this in court, it was only to get the remaining rebates to the former candidates. Only 17 had slipped through the cracks before auditors became aware of the fraud scheme. The company handling their national campaign, when presented with one of the doctored invoices, said that it wasn't theirs and that it looked as though someone had photocopied their letterhead and then added the figures themselves.

The Conservatives argument was only that Maynard had no authority to investigate the scheme.

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand overstepped his bounds by probing the Conservative party's 2006 campaign financing before rejecting the expense claims filed by some candidates, the party’s lawyer argued in court Monday. Mayrand’s role in assessing returns filed by candidates is confined by law to approving the documents provided to him and he is not empowered to launch a more detailed audit, Michel Décary told the Federal Court of Canada on the first day of hearings into the party’s legal action against the top election official.

Quite the defense.

And the 17 caught with their hands in our cookie jar, included several MPs, some cabinet ministers:

The MPs who were reimbursed are: Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon (Pontiac), Conservative whip Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River), former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier (Beauce), International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner (Louis St. Laurent), Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles), Steven Blaney (Levis-Bellechasse), Jacques Gourde (Lotbiniere-Chutes-de-la-Chaudiere), Luc Harvey (Louis-Hebert), Pat Davidson (Sarnia-Lambton), David Anderson (Cypress Hills-Grasslands), and Colin Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap).

Someone suggested yesterday that we should stop calling it the "in and out", because it oversimplifies the matter, taming it down. This was a deliberate and wilful attempt to ignore the laws that protect our democracy and cheat the Canadian taxpayers out of a great deal of money.

It's just that simple.

David Marler has been vindicated.

Walter Natynczyk May be the Next to Lose His Job

As everyone who has ever spoken out against Stevie has learned. You don't speak out against Stevie. He has ways of making you "not talk".

So will Canada's top soldier Walter Natynczyk, be the next to feel the wrath of Steve?

Canada's top soldier, Gen. Walter Natynczyk, says concerns raised by the veterans ombudsman are "absolutely correct issues" and the controversial New Veterans Charter "doesn't work for everyone." At a news conference Friday, Natynczyk, the chief of the defence staff, was asked if veterans ombudsman Pat Stogran, whose term is not being renewed, has been doing a good job. "He has certainly voiced with clarity what the issues are," said Natynczyk, who held the news conference with his Dutch counterpart, Gen. Peter Van Uhm, who has been on an official visit to Canada.

But as Gerald Caplin points out, Stevie simply chose the wrong person to do the job. He chose a man who actually stood up for the troops and didn't hide behind them.

It's a seeming paradox that one of the genuine contributions of the Harper government to the commonwealth was the creation of the latest of these public advocates, an independent Veterans' Ombudsman. But its purpose, we can now see, was to stand up for the Harper government against our war veterans. But in retired colonel named Pat Stogran, the government seemed to have selected the wrong man for the job. Stogran apparently shared the plausible assumption that the Harper government cared about the welfare of our troops not only in the field but when they returned home bearing the deep scars of their military experiences.

This was an easy mistake to make. After all, anyone who had opposed the Harper government's war policies in Afghanistan were given the Joe McCarthy treatment, smeared as something close to traitors betraying the brave boys and girls who were putting themselves in harm's way in a distant land. As the Prime Minister repeatedly observed in a nice Orwellian twist, it was those who wanted to bring our young women and men home who were actually responsible for the danger they faced in the field.

And if you want to know what Harper's real priorities were, when it comes to Vets, according to Strogam: "“I was told by a senior Treasury Board analyst, who shall remain nameless, that it is in the government's best interest to have soldiers killed overseas rather than wounded because the liability is shorter term.”

Short term liabilities. I wonder if that's in the army manual. "At all times a soldier must try to die in battle because we simply can't afford to look after you if you don't. We do promise a parade if you will do this simple chore."

More than 1 in 5 Canadians soldiers are known to leave Afghanistan with psychiatric problems, though experts are certain this considerably lowballs the real figure, given what soldiers face there. A significant number return home deeply traumatized. As Pat Stogran discovered, to his horror, some of them become spouse abusers, drunk drivers, druggies, homeless, uncontrollably violent, attempted suicides and drunken thugs. Those who have endured multiple deployments become the walking wounded. Their families are often shattered, with all members facing their own psychological or physical nightmares.

Whether you support the war or not, no Canadian should support this. These poor men and women are as much victims as those who lost their lives. The difference is, they are still being victimized.

I posted a partial list yesterday, of those who learned the hard day, what happens when they cross Stevie. Chantel Hebert mentioned some I had forgotten about:

Marc Mayrand: Canada's chief electoral officer has been locked in a legal battle with the Conservative Party over campaign spending.

Konrad von Finckenstein: There is speculation that the CRTC chair is in the government's crosshairs after refusing to fast-track Quebecor’s application for a top-category broadcasting licence for Sun TV’s planned Fox News clone.

Remy Beauregard: The former president of Rights and Democracy died this year after a stormy meeting with the Montreal rights agency's board, which is led by Conservative appointees.

Hebert wonders:

Last winter’s prorogation backlash was unexpectedly strong. Over the summer, the level of engagement of Canada’s civil society on the census issue has been unprecedented, with otherwise Conservative-friendly constituencies among the vocal critics of the decision to abolish the long form. This week, the circle widened again to include more otherwise natural allies of the Conservatives like the veterans and the country’s police associations.

But there is still at least one significant constituency on which Harper’s approach to dissent apparently continues to work wonders. Apparently deaf to any voice other than their master’s, Harper’s MPs and senators have so far been content to dance to whatever tune the prime minister has taken a fancy to. On his watch, the cat seems to have gotten the tongue of even the most independently minded men and women who make up the cabinet and caucus.

Have they all been hypnotized or has Stevie demanded they all have lobotomies? I'm with the lobotomy thing because they are all acting so weird.

An unidentified source sent me this from their last caucus meeting. Of course they may not have simply wished to be "unidentified", but maybe just don't remember their own name.