Sat 19 Jul 2008
The political dragnet appears to be closing in on the federal Conservatives.
Contrary to their repeated claims, they are the only party to have engaged in questionable expense transfers that led the chief electoral officer to launch an investigation into the party's accounts.
Despite their best efforts to divert attention from this central fact at this week's parliamentary hearings into election spending, it is becomingly increasingly clear that the Tories' spending habits are far from conventional.
What set alarm bells ringing with federal elections officials in 2006, was the indication that the federal party was sending money to individual candidates' campaigns who then sent it right back again as "payment" for advertising.
In this way, the federal Conservative campaign was able to spend about $1 million more than it was legally allowed, because the money wound up on the books of local candidates rather than of the national party.
The second half of the scheme saw the local candidates claiming a 60 per cent rebate for the cost of the ads from the federal government under national election laws. In essence, the candidates were being compensated for money they didn't actually spend.
When this operation first hit the news in April, Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan confirmed that this was exactly what the Tories were doing, but said it was perfectly legal. What's more, he said, the Liberals were doing much the same thing.
Not so, according to chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand, who appeared before the House of Commons ethics committee this week. After reviewing all of the campaign expense reports for the 2006 federal election and the 2004 election, Mr. Mayrand found that no other party transferred money to candidates and then back to itself.
This is a key part of the puzzle, since national campaigns must report their expenses separately from candidates under federal election law. The Conservatives wound up spending $18 million in the '06 election, just $206,081 less than its spending limit. The cash-back scheme puts it about $1.1 million over the limit, which could put the party in a very tricky position.
At a minimum, the party could be forced to reimburse taxpayers for the money. Furthermore, if the expenses were charged to the party, then it could also be forced to pay fines and party officials could conceivably serve jail time for the offence.
As unlikely as such a scenario seems, there is no doubt that the Conservatives' credibility is taking a direct hit as a result of these findings.
That the Tories would take it upon themselves to bypass federal election law in such a cavalier manner is worrisome enough. That they would then proceed to try to gloss over it as a practice common to all parties suggests that it holds the truth in low esteem.
This impression is only strengthened by the Conservative MPs who used Mr. Mayrand's appearance at the ethics committee hearing as a forum from which to launch further personal attacks on the man. They spent most of two days ignoring the facts of the issue while busying themselves with asking how the information was leaked to the press in the first place.
Not content with that smokescreen, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre went on to say that Mr. Mayrand's appearance has only further convinced him that the chief electoral officer is out to get the Conservatives. This is particularly odd, given that it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper who appointed Mr. Mayrand to the job.
In fact, what is happening now is only a continuation of a confrontation that began with Mr. Mayrand's predecessor, Jean-Pierre Kingsley. Less than a month before he resigned from his job, Mr. Kingsley wrote to various Conservative candidates asking them to justify their claims for the advertising expenses that have now blossomed into a parliamentary debate.
Those letters went out beginning on Nov. 29, 2006. On Dec. 22 that year, he wrote his letter of resignation to the Speaker of the House of Commons. At the time, there was plenty of speculation about why Mr. Kingsley would resign from a job he appeared to like, particularly when he still had two years remaining in his contract.
In any event, Mr. Harper replaced Mr. Kingsley with Mr. Mayrand, who, too, has concerns now with the Conservatives' spending practices. Obviously, this is not so much a problem with personalities as it is with respect for the law as it is written.
Rather than pursue a vendetta with the country's chief electoral officer, the Conservatives would be far better served to simply respect the process set out under federal election law and make good on whatever they owe.
The longer this charade plays out, the worse it's going to become for Mr. Harper.
No comments:
Post a Comment