Blue Like You

I suppose it’s not surprising that two different newspapers would have opposing viewpoints of the ‘Ethics’ debacle going on in Ottawa, which seems like a ridiculous waste of our short Canadian summer anyway.

On one hand we have the Montreal Gazette stating that the CPC’s claim of Elections Canada being biased, is ‘ludicrous’.

However, Ottawa Citizen’s John Robson presents a far more thoughtful, detailed piece with several examples of how Pierre Poilievre has left Marc Mayrand squirming with such panache as would befit a classic Perry Mason show.

Hunter at Climbing out of the Dark has been doing an amazing job providing ongoing video and commentary of this Summer Thriller or Bore depending on your POV.

Anyway, please check out the links if you’re so inclined and render your verdict in the comment section.

May as well watch the show, Canada. You’re paying for it.

* * * *

Big Update from Steve Janke - Those boxes are back now. You know those ones that were taken out amid a big photo op? Well, they’re back and they never left the building!!!

So Elections Canada was concerned about the media fallout from the Tory accusations of an alleged leak - In fact they were so concerned that they considered various methods of "killing" the story (H/T National Newswatch ).

Today’s Globe reveals a fascinating glimpse into Elections Canada and their various aborted attempts to diffuse the allegations of bias. We hear tales of blacked-out emails acquired under access to information and panicked attempts at damage-control:

In one of the emails, chief financial officer, Janice Vézina responds to Marc Mayrand’s concerns about how to’ kill’ the allegation of a leak as follows:

"If we can dispel this story [the leak], we will have only positive media coverage," replied Ms. Vézina, the associate deputy chief electoral officer in charge of political financing. "And the alternative is that we appear to be partisan or biased or vindictive and at the moment the media seem to believe we tipped off the CBC and the Liberals."

And on April 18th Mayrand writes:

"Our internal review indicates no reasonable ground to believe there was a leak," he wrote. "This may be pure diversion tactic/competitive frustration from a media outlet vis-a-vis another. The central fact is that media were there more than two hours after the operation started. "

Uh-huh. And yet the CBC itself reported differently:

…Camera crews, including one from the Liberal party, were on hand as police arrived at the downtown building…

So the timeline is still somewhat contradictory.

And why did Elections Canada feel the need to have only positive press anyway? Usually only politicians need concern themselves with such matters. And if you have nothing to hide, why worry about killing stories and blacking out emails?

And why would you even go to the extent of paying attention to blogs, and furiously keeping track of all opinons:

The remaining documents show Elections Canada kept a close eye on media coverage of the raid and its political fallout. Summaries of blogs , websites and broadcasts were compiled.

On April 29, the agency wrote a summary of news articles on the ad-buy controversy and tallied the number that were positive, neutral and negative .

If you had nothing to hide, why would you be so concerned?

Oh, and if anyone from Elections Canada is reading this, you can put this post down as a ‘negative’. Just to save you some taxpayer-funded time.

* * * *

Update: The Globe provides a helpful Chronology of the so-called In-and-out ’scheme’ here . I’m not sure that this is complete. There seems to be some information missing regarding the CPC’s suit against Elections Canada, which I feel is very relevant. If anyone can add more info, please feel free to do so in comments. Thanks.

Background links : Elizabeth Thompson - "Ins and Outs of the Warrant."

Stephen Taylor - "The Elections Canada raid (Supporting information and Conservative response)."

Gerry Nicholls: "Elections Canada Bullies".

David Frum: "Elections Canada’s campaign against Free Speech". (National Post)

John Robson: "The Tories might have a point". (Ottawa Citizen)

Elizabeth Thompson: "The original in and out election financing".

Memo to Elections Canada: I think you can safely categorize all the above links as "negative."

Always glad to be of service.

Please also check out Halls of Macadamia - Scary hidden agenda.

Steve Janke’s Angry in the Great White North seems to have caught Election Canada’s eye(s).

Looks like there may be someone else besides the CPC and Gerry Nicolls that has a difficult time accepting the notion of Elections Canada as some kind of infallible deity.

Licia Corbella describes her own run-ins with ‘that independent government body’ - Chief interpeter can’t even interpret election ad laws (H/T to reader Frmgrl):

…The first three agents at Elections Canada’s head office in Ottawa had never even heard about the advertising law and told me to call a 1-800 number.

When asked if it would be legal for me to pay for such an ad, one agent said: “Sounds fine with me. It’s your money. You should be able to do whatever you want with it.”

I agreed with her wholeheartedly. “So is that your answer?” I asked. “This is kind of important. After all, if I interpret this wrong, I could go to jail and get a criminal record.”

That stumped her. Eventually, after being put on hold and speaking to close to one dozen Elections Canada staff members, most of whom didn’t even know about the law, I was put through to a polite Elections Canada lawyer, who after a long conversation told me that he couldn’t give me legal advice, just “legal information.” His advice, or “information”? To hire a lawyer to figure it out. I’m not making this up!

While giving his evidence in chief, Kingsley said “third-party” individuals or groups had to be limited to spending no more than $3,000 in any given federal riding to a maximum of $150,000 during the election campaign or face criminal charges, large fines and even jail.

But when he was asked to interpret various scenarios — like the one I presented to Elections Canada officials during the 2004 federal election — he was unable or unwilling to interpret the law he says he helped frame and of which he was the self-described chief interpreter and enforcer…

And she gives her opinion of the current brouhaha:

…Just days after the election began, Andrew Kumpf sent an e-mail to Conservative party officials, wondering if the proposal to have Retail Media place ads on behalf of local candidates would violate the Canada Elections Act: “While our thinking is that this option would be legal, we are not certain beyond all reasonable doubt.”

Is anyone? If the Tories sought clarity on election advertising from Elections Canada, like I did and the court did, they very likely got conflicting information, ambiguous information, no information or some “legal information” to call a lawyer.

The New Democrats did virtually the same thing as the Tories during that election campaign — that is, they used national party funds to run national ads with just a local tagline at the end of the ad promoting the local candidate.

But Elections Canada hasn’t raided the NDP’s headquarters or the Liberals, who have engaged in the same practice in the past…

Wherever the truth may lie, the opposition parties will pursue this one as long as they can. However, I hardly think it has the impact of the sponsorship scandal on Joe Blow Canadian.

He’s more concerned about his gas and food prices going up while his job disappears.

Fellow traveller ChuckerCanuk pointed me in the direction of this little nugget by Elizabeth Thompson.

It may shed some light on why Elections Canada went all the way to Toronto to get a judge to sign the warrant. As she said, it obviously wasn’t done in order to keep it a secret:

…The folks at Elections Canada were most helpful in letting the media know where the warrant was to be found. Can’t be to save gas. The Toronto court house where the warrant was issued is a four hour drive from Elections Canada’s HQ which is just a quick walk from the Ottawa courthouse…

Read the whole article for the missing link.

There may actually be something to the conspiracy theory.

(At the very least, Elections Canada is guilty of not shopping locally.)

Yesterday’s bizarre spectacle (as reported by MSM) of the CPC giving only certain members of the media an advanced briefing on the contents of the Elections Canada warrant, and then escaping down the fire stairway to avoid others, is not likely to help further the Conservatives’ case in the court of public opinion.

However, there are still a few lingering questions that need to be answered honestly, and without spin from either side:

1. Did the CPC comply with all documentation requests from Elections Canada or not? If the latter, then let’s see the evidence. EC should be able to demonstrate exactly which requests went unanswered. If the former, then the ‘raid’ on Conservative HQ looks very suspect - especially in view of the civil suit launched by the CPC against EC.

The Star reports that “the Conservatives insist they have done nothing wrong and say they were taken aback at the raid last week because they have complied with all requests to turn over documents.”

But in the affidavit, Lamothe alleges the federal Conservatives embarked on a deliberate strategy to thwart election financing laws – and the party’s spending limits – and to claim $700,000 in rebates for advertising expenses to which local candidates were not entitled.

Lamothe sought hard-copy and electronic copies of correspondence, emails, invoices, accounting records and other documents that would outline discussions between Conservative officials and its media production and buying agencies Retail Media, Yield or Yield Integrated, Republic Publicité + Design Inc.

2. Did EC cart away documentation from the civil case or not? There are conflicting reports. If so, why?

Investigators lined 16 or 18 people up along a hallway, one party official said, “like we were going to shoot back? I mean they had … unfettered access to every single thing in Conservative party headquarters. They removed 17 boxes of material specific to our lawsuit, all the background stuff.”

“They took away our tactics and our strategy” for the court case, said the official.

He also said the raid went well beyond the scope of the warrant, with investigators gathering information that had nothing to do with the issue.

“What does my computer and what’s on there about the next campaign strategy, the next platform, the next ad campaign, and everything else, what the hell has that got to do with Elections Canada?” another official said.

“This is absolutely over the top.”

Much of the seized material is likely to be the subject of legal arguments over whether it is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

3. Who tipped off the CBC (and likely the LPC) about the RCMP ‘raid’? Why?

One thing for sure. Nobody’s going to come out smelling sweet on this one.

Sandy has a great post here - Communications 101 for the Conservative Party.

Trusty Tory wants to go on the offensive - Where’s the counter attack??

Steve Maher’s featured again on National Newswatch - this time with a somewhat more relevant piece than a previous one…

Today’s column (Tories may only have succeeded in making themselves look bad) is fairly well-balanced, with plenty of scorn for both major parties in Canada. However, I find this paragraph disturbing:

…The Harper team instinctively attacks opponents, which is good politics, since it forces political rivals to spend half their time defending themselves. When the Tories go after independent officials, however, they look dishonest and mean, since to believe them, you are asked to believe that independent officials are corrupt. The standard of proof for that is higher than anything the Tories have offered…

Contrast that with David Frum’s excellent editorial in today’s Post - Elections Canad’s campaign against free speech:

Yesterday on this page, Gerry Nicholls accused Elections Canada of being a power-crazed bureaucracy motivated by petty vindictiveness.

That’s the optimistic scenario! Power-crazed bureaucrats can be restrained or replaced.

The more frightening possibility raised by this week’s RCMP “visit” to Conservative party headquarters is that the Canadian bureaucracy has once again revealed a deep, sustained and highly ideological hostility to ordinary rights of free speech…

Frum goes on to outline how some of our supposedly non-partisan Canadian institutions like Elections Canada and the CHRC are undermining political free speech, and political freedom by extension! Please read the whole thing and then save it for future reference.

Canadians need to take off their rose-coloured glasses and take a critical look at those hallowed institutions that we seem to have placed on a pedestal. They are run by human beings.

And as such, they are not above constructive criticism and monitoring.

Not a lot of time for blogging today, but Steve Janke raises a good point - “If the search warrant was leaked…” (H/T to Frmgrl in comments).

On the question of a leak, Gerry Nicholls has an op-ed in the Post - Revenge of the Elections Canada Bureaucrats. This is one scary horror story! Every Canadian should be concerned. It questions the impartiality of EC.

Finally, please focus your attention on the hyperbole in this editorial by The Ottawa Citizen’s Susan Riley - New cast, same script:

…As for the latest contretemps — RCMP raids this week on Conservative headquarters over alleged campaign financing irregularities — Harper may be saved this time by complexity. Conservatives are accused by critics of getting around spending limits on national campaigns by filtering at least $1 million through local riding associations. The opposition says this amounts to money-laundering. Conservatives say it is perfectly legal and that Liberal MPs do the same thing. “Why are (only) Conservatives not allowed to talk about their national leader and national policies in an election,” House Leader Peter Van Loan complained yesterday, a textbook example of the avowedly transparent Harper government’s sophistry.

Adding confusion, we don’t know yet if the RCMP is chasing this so-called “in-and-out” accounting trick, or some other misdeed. In any event, the details may be lost in Conservative side attacks on Liberals, the CBC, the RCMP, and anyone else who questions. This may be good for the Tories, but it is bad for politics. Rather than turning to an alternative party, what if more voters — finding none — turn off politics altogether?

Note the use of RCMP raid and RCMP chasing…

Now if you recall, it was the RCMP themselves who said they were there to merely provide assistance (and possibly even oversee the execution of the warrant so that EC didn’t overstep their boundaries):

RCMP commissioner Bill Elliott said the RCMP has a “longstanding memorandum of understanding” to assist Elections Canada, and insisted his officers were simply complying with a request.

This is NOT an RCMP raid, nor is it an RCMP investigation!!!

And yet Ms. Riley has the gall to lecture us on ethics.

Just how ‘non-partisan’ is Elections Canada?

The fact that Gerry Nichols who is usually a thorn in Harper’s side, actually backed up the Conservative Party yesterday with this post, is probably one of the most telling indicators of where the truth actually lies.

Gerry pulls no punches. And the Globe seemed impressed enough to report on his observations this morning.

Yesterday, on MDL, Garth Turner kept referring to things not passing the smell test. (Great post, Sentinel).

Well, I think something just reeks. Why were the CBC, and the Liberal party first off the block with this story? Does the NDP not watch Newsworld? Some reports have certain suspects actually waiting for the RCMP and Elections Canada to arrive. Jason Kenney said as much on the aforementioned MDL clip.

Don Martin discloses the following observations:

…The real interesting part, which has a lot of Conservative MPs in a lather, is how two camera crews magically surfaced to stake out both floors rented by the Conservative party within minutes of the search warrant being executed.

The RCMP cruisers were unmarked and the police scanner didn’t broadcast the “visit,” so unless CBC journalists are telepathic, the only plausible explanation is that they were tipped by Elections Canada.

And being dedicated Newsworld watchers, gleeful Liberals armed with their own cameras were scrambled to record the “visitation” within minutes of the news being broadcast…

He also calls Elections Canada’s actions “heavy-handed”.

A comment at Warren Kinsella’s blog caught my attention:

…And André Thouin just happens to be an ex-RCMP officer.

I believe the RCMP, the Liberals, and the media were there so early because Mr. Thouin arranged it so. The weapons and flak jackets make no sense at all, except to draw attention to the fact that these were no mere Elections Canada lackies. Whatever the case, it was well played. And clearly a “PR stunt” by EC.

There’s nothing wrong with calling it like it is.
Sitsonsix | 04.16.08 - 7:37 pm

Canadians need to be reassured that such a vital institution as Elections Canada actually is non-partisan. Our democracy depends on it.

The optics sure aren’t comforting.

The Toronto Star reports:

…A videographer hired by the Liberals was present as the raid was carried out, alongside mainstream media camera crews documenting the incident…

It doesn’t sound like they just happened by, does it?

Brenda Martin shouldn’t be so anxious to get back here. In the court of political and media rhetoric, Canada isn’t far behind Mexico in the concept of guilty until proven innocent.

The headlines from yesterday’s story have run the gamut from RCMP called in to help search Tory offices, all the way to RCMP raids Tory office in election probe.

Never mind that the RCMP clarified the situation as follows (RCMP raid a ‘PR stunt’, Tories claim):

…RCMP commissioner Bill Elliott said the RCMP has a “longstanding memorandum of understanding” to assist Elections Canada, and insisted his officers were simply complying with a request…

Whatever that means. However, it wasn’t a ‘raid’ by the RCMP. But as noted in the previous post, the hyperbole and torqued headlines are spinning around the world.

The political rhetoric is also astounding. From the Liberal website:

The RCMP raid of Conservative Party headquarters is proof that Prime Minister Stephen Harper must explain to Canadians about his party’s alleged involvement in deceptive financing practices during the 2006 federal election, the Liberal Opposition said today.

Aha. They learned from the last time and added the word ‘alleged’. But if this was only some assistance that the RCMP was providing to their old buddies, Elections Canada, then the preceding paragraph seems a bit contrived, n’est-pas?

And Michael Ignatieff self-righteously proclaims:

“How did it get to this? An RCMP squad raiding the offices of the Conservative Party - spinners in frantic damage control,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “I mean, how did we get here? Why did Elections Canada have to get a search warrant and the help of the RCMP in the first place? Why did they have to pry information from this government’s clenched fist?”

Mmmm…. How did it get to this, Michael?

Do you think those camera-toting colleagues of yours who were descending like hungry vultures and greedily snapping photos for future ads have any idea either?

Anyway, don’t rush back, Brenda. It isn’t a whole lot better here either.

I left a comment. Wonder if he’ll publish it.

Tories say Liberals were tipped to raid - Star:

…A videographer hired by the Liberals was present as the raid was carried out…

But CBC’s Newman said just before QP today, that they must have seen it on the news, and decided to drop by? C’mon.