Thursday, May 01, 2008

Elections Canada Aiding Separatists?

The Conservatives have provided many examples, wherein Elections Canada have turned a blind eye to the "fishy" financing practices of the Bloc. Bloc MP Michel Guimond, yesterday in parliament, spoke to this line of argument:
It is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Conservatives tell us that a sovereigntist party received preferential treatment from Elections Canada.

Extraordinary indeed, if the Conservatives are correct then EC unfairly punished a federalist party, while simultaneously giving carte blanche to a party, who's primary motivation is the breakup of Canada. Nevermind Liberal moles in EC, I think it time to ask- are there sovereigntist sympathizers within EC, part of a clandestine operation to undermine Canadian unity? Does this fact explain the Bloc motion, declaring full confidence in EC?

I think we should approach the Conservative arguments with an open mind, primarily because the implications of their factual assertions, plainly show that Elections Canada is engaged in a deliberate attempt to undermine Canada, harming federalists, allowing separatists an unfair advantage. Everyone should applaud the Conservatives for exposing Elections Canada, actively trying to undermine our country. Very, very believable, and very disturbing.


jad said...

Good post, and I applaud your lack of partisanship on this one. To me, the most mystifying thing about the revelations about the Bloc's lawsuit etc. is that it has taken this long for the media to finally remember about it. I guess it's just much easier to write a story based on the talking points you get handed out.

Steve V said...


clh said...

A casualty in the age of misspoken communicators and nationally coordinated talking points for the masses, is the ability to recognize satire.

Gayle said...

I was just going to post and warn you that someone was going to take you seriously.

Steve V said...

Wow, people take Pierre seriously? Who knew.

Mark Francis said...

Technically, this is sarcasm, not satire.

sassy said...

How long before some rightwing blog gleefully links to this post?

Or do they even bother stepping outside of their z o n e?

Steve V said...


After the jad reaction, I was wondering that too.

RuralSandi said...

BTC: Remember when the National Post doggedly pursued allegations of government wrongdoing?
By Aaron Wherry
May 1st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Posted to: The Commons

Funny. Just yesterday the government was publicly lauding the work of former Post reporter Andrew McIntosh. He left some years ago for the sunnier atmosphere of the Sacramento Bee. Here he is, recently writing on problems in the nail gun industry.

Anyway. In today’s Post, there’s an editorial on the in-and-out dodginess. It should surprise you little to learn the paper’s editors don’t think it’s much of a scandal. But here are the two most interesting sentences.

“So why all the attention by Elections Canada to this alleged technical breach? The official answer is that after the Liberals lost the last election they complained about the Tories transfers, a move that compelled Elections Canada to act.”

The official answer? Really?

Once more to the Elections Canada affidavit.

From page 11. “On April 11, 2007, a written referral (hereinafter called the Referral) signed on April 5, 2007 by Ms. Janice Vezina, Senior Director, Political Financing, Audit and Corporate Services, and Ms. Manon Hamel, Acting Director Political Financing and Audit, was received by the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The referral sets out that during the election period of the 39th federal general election, the Conservative Party of Canada, a registered political party, undertook with its chief agent, the Conservative Fund Canada, a planned course of action to incur and pay election expenses with respect to election advertising broadcast time, but through a series of transactions created the appearance that, for the required reporting to Elections Canada, some of the expenses incurred by various candidates. The Conservative Party of Canada incurred the expense by entering into an agreement with Retail Media, a company it engaged to purchase broadcast time.”

From page 13. “Included in the Referral is the explanation as to how and why Elections Canada became aware of the alleged media buy scheme. In late October 2006, Mr. Rani Naoufal, an auditor employed at the Political Financing and Audit Directorate of Elections Canada, discussed with Mr. Denny Pagtakhan, official agent for Mrs. Elizabeth Pagtakhan, Conservative Party of Canada candidate in the electoral district of Vancouver East (British Columbia), an election expense filled with Elections Canada by the candidate. The discussion concerned an invoice dated January 4, 2006 in the amount of $29,999.70, which had been issued to the Pagtakhan campaign by the Conservative Fund Canada relating to a media buy.

“Mr. Pagtakhan stated to Mr. Naoufal, “I think we contributed to TV national advertising. There was no way we can spend our limit so we were asked by the Party if we can help contribute.

“Upon being advised of this discussion by Mr. Naoufal, Ms. Manon Hamel, Acting Director of Political Financing and Audit Directorate, undertook a further review of Conservative Party of Canada candidate returns filed with Elections Canada with respect to the 39th federal general election. Her review identified 67 returns filed by Conservative Party of Canada candidates in which she noted amounts transferred into the candidate’s account by the Conservative Fund Canada, which closely equated to election expenses claimed by the candidate for media buys, and in which similar amounts were almost immediately transferred back to the Conservative Fund Canada.”

Hmmmm.....don't see any referral to Liberals or separatists....

Möbius said...

I caught the sarcasm immediately.

jad must be a Liberal.

Steve V said...


Ya, sure sounded like one ;) Slurp, slurp.