Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Throwing stones while living in glass houses.

The National Citizens Coalition thinks Elections Canada is “biased” against the Conservatives and Harper, and the reason why they’re going after them on the In and Out scandal.  I find it amusing that an organization like the NCC – which is an ally to the Harper government; the article in the Hill Times even describes them as a conservative lobby group -  would be trying to accuse others of being biased.

Further to that, if EC’s sole rationale was to go after someone based on ‘bias’, rather then evidence, I wouldn’t think a 3 member Federal Appeals Court would unanimously rule against the Conservatives and for Elections Canada (1 of those judges was appointed by Harper, by the way).  In case you need reminding, the case that went to the Supreme Court that the NCC claims is the basis for E.C’s “bias” ended up in them (and Harper) losing that case. If anything, I’d think it was the other way around: the NCC has a bone to pick with EC  – and by extension the courts – for having lost the case. So, no surprise they’re putting out ridiculous statements.

Another former NCC guy doesn’t think this scandal will resonate with Canadians.  Maybe. maybe not. But with Oda being in the news, and now this, it may have a cumulative effect. We saw a new Harris-Decima poll yesterday showing the Conservatives lead had contracted from a 12 % lead in their last poll down to an 8 % lead with this one, and this occurred before the Federal Court of Appeal decision.  So, Mr. Nicholls may be a bit premature in his prediction. We’ll see.






9 comments to Throwing stones while living in glass houses.

  • Anon ABC

    What both Coleman and Nichols failed to point out was that EC actually appealed to the Courts to be allowed to stay the use of the fair pricing model for evaluating the ads. EC was seemingly concerned that it would lead to some 10 candidates, including four Cabinet Ministers in Quebec (Bernier, Cannon, Paradis, etc), exceeding their individual limits. The latter would lead to drastic consequences for them, should be they charged and convicted of exceeding their individual limits. Why would EC do that if they had it in for Harper?

    Harper, both during his NCC days and then in this In and Out debacle, took EC to court (as was his right and that of the NCC and Cons Party). The point is that it is rich that after playing hardball with EC, they now seem to be whining that EC is biased against them. But then again, is this surprising coming from the Harper Party and its associates/friends?

    The NCC let it out yesterday that Harper’s legal fights with EC cost it $1M. What I would like to know is whether the Cons Party is paying for all these legal challenges to the In and Out, and the defence of the Gang of 4, or are taxpayers paying some or all of the bills? Hopefully, some journalist or group somewhere is looking into this.

    It would not surprise me that taxpayers are paying, at least partially, both sides of the legal battles in the In and Out scandal.

  • Roll Tide

    Political party activists often work and help out with lobby groups.. A lobby group has a agenda, that does not mean they are partisan. They want specific policies in place, who ever the party in power is.

    The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, had political party activists (Judy Rebick, Chaviva Hosek). That does not mean they are partisan.
    Campaign Life. They are a pro life organization that promotes the culture of life. They are biased as well. However, like NACSW they are non partison. They let their members know which candidates are “pro life” regardless of party, as NACSW will tell you which candidates are “pro choice”, regardless of party affiliation.
    The NCC will turn on Harper (read Nichols of late), just like the NACSW would turn on the Liberals when Paul Martin was finance minister.

  • As you suggest, the National Citizens Coalition is in effect saying that, by extension, the three judges who unanimously ruled against the Conservatives must also be biased and out to get the Conservative Party and Harper. The NCC is sounding terribly paranoid, aren’t they?

  • Roll Tide

    Bias and partisanship are two different entities.
    One has to do with opinion, the other for party.
    The NCC have a distinct conservative opinion or bias, such as the CFIB. That does not mean they are partisan. Kairos has a distinct leftist bias, but is not partisan.

    • Redrum

      uh-huh. Except that the NCC hired the ultra-partisan Blogging Tory founder & head Con-Bot Talking Point Pez-dispenser Stephen Taylor as its Director of Social Media,

      www +

      …which it’d scarcely do if it were truly non-partisan and wanted to remain to be perceived as such.

      and as I noted here in the last thread yesterday, Peter Coleman, the current President & CEO of the NCC — and thus a Harper successor — made a Freudian slip in his interview published in the Hill Times yesterday when referring to Elections Canada’s alleged vendetta against the then-President & CEO Stephen Harper for his 2000 court challenge against Canada on the constitutionality 3rd party spending caps, which totally blurs the distinction between the NCC & the cult-of-personality Conservative party, thus:

      “From my perspective, they probably don’t like Harper going back to the days he was here, absolutely … I just think it’s pretty hard to not think, if you’re sitting back objectively that there’s not a bit of friction between the Conservatives and Elections Canada”

      http + ://

  • TofKW

    About the polls, don’t believe OOPSos-Reid. This is the same polling firm that put Smitherton ahead of Ford just a month before last November’s municipal election. Watch what Nanos (my personal fav for accuracy) EKOS and H-D say over the next while to see any trend.

    As for Nicholls, of course he’s going to say that. Opposition should shout him down with “Your people are looking at jail time!” at every opportunity.

    I’m sick and tired of these lying asshats in the Harper government. Hoping to see Oda get slapped with Contempt of Parliament on top of this.

  • Roll Tide

    “the article in the Hill Times even describes them as a conservative lobby group – would be trying to accuse others of being biased.”

    NCC is supposed to be biased, Elections Canada not.

    PS……Jim Travers RIP
    I always found him to be a true decent, gentleman.

    • Redrum

      but the NCC actually claims / pretends to be nonpartisan, though:

      “We are Canada’s largest non-partisan organization for the defence and promotion of free enterprise, free speech and government that is accountable to its taxpayers…. We are unlike any other advocacy groups. We do not accept any government funding and we do not lobby politicians or bureaucrats.”

      http + ://

      And their CLAIMING that EC is biased doesn’t make that so; indeed, the federal court of appeal — the second highest court in the land — has just ruled that they were acting very reasonably and well within their mandate… which is to apply the Laws of the Land which specify that elections are to be conducted on a level playing field which doesn’t allow the most moneyed interests to drown out the voices of the rest… something the NCC and Harper has been fighting tooth and nail for over a decade.

  • MontrealElite

    If anything, the polls are volatile = anybody’s game.

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