After months of heated denials, the federal Conservative party has quietly admitted it failed to publicly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations.
That means at least three party members — including Prime Minister Stephen Harper — donated more than the legal limit last year.
Last Thursday, the party filed a revised financial report for 2005 with Elections Canada, acknowledging that it did not report delegate fees collected for its national convention that year as donations, contrary to political financing laws.
In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses."
The report does not explain what constitutes "other revenue" or "other expenses."
Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates.
.....
When the Canadian Press first reported Baird's comments and the apparent breach of the law, Tory officials angrily insisted they'd "fully complied" with the law and that delegate fees could only be considered donations if the convention turned a profit.
The Tories persisted in this argument even after Elections Canada officials made it clear that profit had nothing to do with it and that the Tory interpretation of the law was incorrect.
"I can fax you scads of material on this. This is the way it's been done for time immemorial," Conservative party legal counsel, Paul Lepsoe, told CP last summer.
Holland said much of the Tories' mishandling of their 2005 convention fees appears to be the product of "complete ignorance" of the law.
"To me, that's just as scary [as deliberately breaking the law]. I mean, we have a Treasury Board president who doesn't even understand the laws he's attempting to rewrite. I mean, it's astounding. It's breathtaking."
is the Cdn. arm of Anderson Accounting still in business?
Last edited by MACSPECTRUM; Dec 27th, 2006 at 11:29 PM.
I know you want to believe there was corruption here Spec, but accounting allows for differences of opinion. Revenue Canada has the final say and in this case RC didn't agree with the whoever was doing the Con books. It's not really a big deal.
__________________
"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion."
I would LOVE to hear how our late Gerry MacNutt would reply to this. See? I'm grinning from ear to ear already just thinking of what he might say. Couldn't say it very well myself so I'll just keep grinnin' for now.
Seems our tranparent and accountable Tory friends flew in many things under the holiday radar. I'm assuming they believe our collective preoccupation will have us forgetting in no time. Nice work sneaky Steve.
I know you want to believe there was corruption here Spec, but accounting allows for differences of opinion. Revenue Canada has the final say and in this case RC didn't agree with the whoever was doing the Con books. It's not really a big deal.
Quote:
Holland said much of the Tories' mishandling of their 2005 convention fees appears to be the product of "complete ignorance" of the law.
"To me, that's just as scary [as deliberately breaking the law]. I mean, we have a Treasury Board president who doesn't even understand the laws he's attempting to rewrite. I mean, it's astounding. It's breathtaking."
Holland said that? Wow, no politics going on there 'Spec. If Holland said, "To me, that's just as scary [as deliberately breaking the law]. I mean, we have a Treasury Board president who doesn't even understand the laws he's attempting to rewrite. I mean, it's astounding. It's breathtaking." then he must be genuine in his claim.
I guess Beej, the implication that the illegal money that Harper and friends collected and used to fight an election means nothing. I mean when we speak of democracy and transparency, well the rules mean nothing as long as power is achieved? Trying to use the "accountability act" to disguise and rewrite the laws to hide this transgression is another example of how principled the Cons are...
Now, the denials for close to 7 months even with emails showing that Harper and his merry band of morally superiour henchmen trying to circumvent certain election laws mean nothing to you Beej because MS highlighted a quote that you don't find neutral?
Why does absurdities and nonsense get negated if you think they are "too" partisan? The party that SINC championed as being "ethical" has proven itself to be quite hypocritical, partisan and abusive don't you think?
It's is quite endemic that what the Cons say one thing in public and do another in private.
I guess Beej, the implication that the illegal money that Harper and friends collected and used to fight an election means nothing. I mean when we speak of democracy and transparency, well the rules mean nothing as long as power is achieved? Trying to use the "accountability act" to disguise and rewrite the laws to hide this transgression is another example of how principled the Cons are...
Now, the denials for close to 7 months even with emails showing that Harper and his merry band of morally superiour henchmen trying to circumvent certain election laws mean nothing to you Beej because MS highlighted a quote that you don't find neutral?
Why does absurdities and nonsense get negated if you think they are "too" partisan? The party that SINC championed as being "ethical" has proven itself to be quite hypocritical, partisan and abusive don't you think?
It's is quite endemic that what the Cons say one thing in public and do another in private.
Uh oh, you're in full AS-mode.
Note that the quote referred to scary, astounding and breathtaking and was spinning ignorance as worse (scarier) than corruption. Those are, even you would admit, Liberal spinning orders.
And I never negated the "absurdities and nonsense" and you are aware of my comments in the other thread on the same topic. Thus the "AS-mode" comment. And, of course, you presume "mean nothing". No, you're not that 'spectacularly stupid. You are, in my opinion, just playing your game.
Cheer up AS, it's ok when, even on an issue where your anti-partisan hackery has a real grip, to point out silliness of "supporting" commentary. Your ideas are weakened by those that lend support through such weak means. You, on the other hand, have put forward some good commentary on the matter. Pre-New Year's resolution?
Linear Mode
