Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


In and Out, the Sequel? Part 2?

It very well might be if the Winnipeg Free Press’s investigation and NDP MP Pat Martin’s complaint to Elections Canada proves to be valid:

A Free Press review of Conservative expense claims turned up 50 Tory candidates who sent a total of $854,000 to the national Conservative campaign under the category of “Election surveys or other surveys and research.” In all but two of the campaigns, the amounts transferred were either $15,000 or $20,000. Sixteen campaigns saw “in-and-out” transactions, where money was paid to the central campaign, and then returned to the local campaign or where the central campaign paid money to the local campaigns and then it was returned to central. In the other 34 campaigns, the transaction only involved a local campaign paying the national campaign. In many, the transactions occurred weeks, even months, after the election was over.

Martin is quoted in the paper as saying this looks very similar to the current “in and out ” controversy that the Cons. find themselves embroiled with Elections Canada over. As my NDP blogging colleague Cam puts it at his site, this could be another layer of a rotted onion that has been discovered, but that will be up for Elections Canada to decide, as they won’t comment on complaints till they go to court over the issue, or settle with an agreement with the parties or persons involved.

At the very least though, it appears like this is another attempt to skirt the election laws.


13 comments to In and Out, the Sequel? Part 2?

  • Ha ha, Colin, you were duped! Conservatives are theives, just like the Liberals.

    I bet you feel really stupid right now, don’t you?

    Hey, why don’t these guys take responsibility for their actions? Last I checked “but everyone else did it” is not a n excuse for committing wrong acts.


  • Gayle

    Still into that comparing thing are you? Still ignoring the fact that no one is saying that “In and Out” is as bad as sponsorship.

    And gee, the other political parties think the liberals owe more. Wow – that means so much. I think we should give the LPC the same consideration the CPC is seeking – the benefit of the doubt. When you come up with, you know, evidence, I will be persuaded. If you say I am wrong, bring evidence to the table.

    In any event, who cares. This post is about the wrongdoing of the CPC, and their complete and utter failure to own up to that…you know, be accountable, take responsibility, behave like adults…

  • Colin

    “Liberals call an inquiry, and make full restitution”

    That is open to interpretation too. According to CPC,NDP and the Bloc the Liberals are still owing the taxpayer millions of dollars.

    That statement is wrong on so many levels I seriously hope you dont believe it.

    Dont peddle crap like that…And if you think that envelopes stuffed with 20’s can be audited…

  • Gayle

    “But dont confuse EC with the courts. They arent, and they dont like that fact much.”

    And you base this on…

    That is right, you have nothing to base this on. EC are doing their jobs. I have yet to hear anything from them that suggests they think they should be the final authority on anything.

    In any event, I think it is wrong for us to concentrate on whether the CPC will get “off” on a technicality. Anyone who reads the affidavit can see they exploited a loophole in order to act in a manner that contradicts the spirit and intent of the spending cap – and then claimed my money (and your money) as a rebate.

    So again, let us compare (since you are in to that):

    Liberals call an inquiry, and make full restitution

    CPC tell their candidates to shut up, deliberately mistate the facts, sue for 700 thousand tax dollars, and whine about unfair treatment rather than “man up” and take responsibility.

  • Colin

    You must not have read the last paragraph. I didnt say the CPC were exonerated. I said it will go before the courts. You can argue speeding tickets too.

    Elections Canada made an allegation and now they will have to prove it in court. But dont confuse EC with the courts. They arent, and they dont like that fact much.

    As for comparing this to Adscam, one is the most offensive fraud perpetrated on Canadians and the other is a dispute between a governmental agency and a political party.

    But to inflate this dispute into a scandal insults the intelligence of most ordinary voters and turns them off to the Liberals.

  • Gayle


    How about the malarkey about comparing this to sponsorship – like somehow that exonerates the CPC.

    Harper is behaving like a child who refuses to take responsibility for his own behaviour. Deal with it.

  • Colin

    Actually Gayle you are dead wrong but A for effort on the spin.

    Martin investigated Chretien. It wasnt out of a genuine desire to put things right. It was part of their ongoing feud.

    And there is still the matter of repayment and jail time for senior Liberal operatives. Dont give me the malarkey about paying it back.

    The dispute the conservatives have with Elections Canada is more of an accounting treatment. This is not a criminal action and the courts will decide who is right. Elections Canada will have to justify their actions in court as will the conservatives, but to suggest that EC is the final arbiter of right and wrong is incorrect.

  • Gayle

    “Can anyone explain how accounting differences are on the same level as actually stealing money through phoney Ad Buys to pay for elections?”

    Did anyone say otherwise?

    What IS telling is the different way each party handled this. The liberals call an enquiry, open the books and pay the money back.

    The cons start pointing fingers, making false allegations about other parties and fall into “victim” mode.

    If your 8 year old was consequenced at school and complained about it because “teacher picks on me”, would you tell her she has to be accountable for her own actions, or would you sue the teacher.

  • j

    Hey Scott,
    I hope that this example of the NDP holding the cons to account puts paid to the LPC whining that the NDP is only criticizing the LPC and not going after the cons for their myriad of scandals. This along with important policy fights such as the sale of MDA, Jack’s Enviro bill, the fight against C10, andvoting against a regressive budget with a hidden anti-democratic immigration reform, etc etc etc shows that the NDP is offering real opposition to this government, unlike the ‘sit on our hands’ Liberal caucus.

  • Colin

    Can anyone explain how accounting differences are on the same level as actually stealing money through phoney Ad Buys to pay for elections?

    I mean, flat broke Quebec liberals bought two elections with cash filled brown envelopes. They were supplied through a kickback scheme invented and devised by senior advisers to Jean Chretien.

    Without these cash filled envelopes many Quebec Liberals could not have funded their campaign offices. Talk about a scandal.

    And you idiots think an accounting scheme is going to shift votes…

    Get used to the hinterland.

    You guys are fucked.

  • Walkswithcoffee

    I’m first quoted here, two years ago, based on this post, post 16, which is a sub-set of my complaint to EC… now two years old.

    The CPC push Kingsley out of office to cover up; they attempted to change the legislation to make their action legal, which was shut down by the opposition, they have recently attempted a libel chill on me… and still there is the question in blank internet ink plain as day.

    Why all these “transfers” to the CPoC mothership… looks like either cheque swapping or double entry to me.



  • Walkswithcoffee

    Now do you believe me 🙂

  • I’ve got the list of 50 candidates. Got shopped to me. Hope its accurate.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.