Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Elections Canada Giving Conservatives Special Treatment?

Pierre the neutered poodle was at it again today, questioning the Liberals leadership campaign debts. Pierre and friends have stated that any extension for the Liberals amounts to special treatment by Elections Canada. With that in mind, reading this story today provided a good laugh. "Special Arrangement?":
Conservative election candidates have regularly missed deadlines for repaying campaign debts, indulging in the same supposedly illegal conduct for which the Tories are now denouncing Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.

Oblivious to their own record, Tories escalated their attacks...

According to a chart compiled by Elections Canada, 426 candidates — including 121 Conservatives — sought extensions to pay off loans after the 2004 election.

As well, 401 candidates — including 125 Conservatives — sought extensions to clear unpaid bills...

Furthermore, Elections Canada’s web site lists 19 candidates — five of them Conservatives — with loans that remained unpaid 18 months after the 2006 election.

It further lists 10 candidates — four of them Conservatives — whose unpaid loans were deemed to count as donations after 18 months. In five of those cases — three involving Conservative candidates — the donations exceed the legal maximum of $5,400 per donor.

Too rich for words.


Anonymous said...

At least Canadians can understand what our neutered poodle is saying unlike your esteemed leader who speaks English like a neutered poodle.

Also, if the figures you quoted are true, it tells a far greater horror story. It looks like the vast majority of candidates owing money are Liberals. No wonder they store money from us. They can't even look after their own finances never mind the country's.

Steve V said...


Wow, lame spin award goes too...

Anonymous said...

Bit of a stretch don't you think....election loans as noted by your article involve small sums of money as allowed under the law and are common practice for all parties.
Leadership loans involve substantial donations from wealthy Liberal Donors (well over the limits allowed by individuals). These types of loans are meant to buy future influence and are the private domain of the liberal party and can influence the actual race itself.
Who are these donors?
What do they expect in return?
Why was this money not properly borrowed from a financial instituition?
The fact that this money is still allowed to be outstanding is a conflict in itself.
These loans may be buying a future Prime Minister.
Why did Mr. Dion need to borrow over $850,000.00?
What is the lender expecting in return?
Why are the lenders ok with the large amount of money outstanding?
As we saw in adscam, people expect and are rewarded whe large amount of money are involved.

Scott Tribe said...

I see the Cons. trolls are out in full force today pushing the "Election Canada is BIASED!" theme.

I have never seen a government so determined to belittle. discredit and destroy independent federal institutions and panels like this one - all in the name of removing nay opposition to how they wish to operate.

Good luck though at impugning Elections Canada's credibility - because Canadians aren't going to buy your paranoia.

Steve V said...

"Why did Mr. Dion need to borrow over $850,000.00?
What is the lender expecting in return?"

That's what I was wondering, when Harper failed to publish the list of who donated to his leadership campaign??

People can fluff off the above all they want, but it demonstrates that Conservatives have used the same sort of extensions they are hypocritically attacking the Liberals on.

Redact Ed said...


What's going on here has nothing to do with the truth, but everything to do with who screams the loudest. If no one here's the correct rebuttal to Harper mouthpiece Pierre (and the anonymous coward above), maybe some Canadians think something untoward is going on with the Liberals.

Of course, this is also an attempt to distract us from the recent Conservative scandals.

Since we're asking questions about donations to leadership campaigns, seems to me we are still waiting to hear back on who Harper's donors were for his leadership campaign -- he had a lot of cash -- and who paid MacKay's $500,000 debt from his failed leadership campaign? Still no answer.

And who paid Ezra Levant to step aside to make way for Harper? There was cash trading hands there...

All three, to this day, refuse to answer...

Steve V said...


Great questions...