These are the things that get the ravens starting to take an interest. It looks like there could be some carrion coming, but for them to start roosting takes a little more than just run of the mill average political misdeeds. The Liberal party thinks they might have found something based on the new legislation dealing with campaign contributions. The law now states that no individual may donate more then $1000.00 to any political party and corporations are not allowed to make contributions to a party, only to the riding association that their business is in.
According to the Liberals, the Conservative party of Canada, unlike all the other parties, did not issue receipts for any amount of the fee charged to delegates for attending their last convention. As each individual paid $600.00 and corporations $750.00, this could have easily put many individuals over the top of their limit and could be seen as corporations donating directly to the national party, which is forbidden. The Conservatives are claiming, since no tax receipts were issued, that these amounts couldn’t be considered donations even though, in the past, all of the parties have issued receipts for these types of fees. A sizable percentage of the fee is used for what could be deemed charitable purposes under the Charities act.
It is accepted practice to allow charities to issue tax receipts for admission charges over and above what is considered paying for services. It's the same principle in effect if a theatre company has a special fundraising performance where the money paid for the admittance, above and beyond the ticket price, is considered a donation.
In case you think the Liberals are just making trouble, if it is found that by not declaring these amounts as donations the Conservatives are in breach of the law, they themselves will be in a real quandary. The Liberal's upcoming convention requires a fee of $995.00 for admission. If all of that is considered a donation, it means that only people who have donated less then five dollars since January 1st/06 can attend.
Their motivation is two-fold: one is to try and nail the Conservative's hides to the wall for talking out two sides of their mouth about integrity and financial reform. Two, it is to see if the Conservatives have changed the laws without telling anybody. No matter how you slice it, the Conservative won't come out looking good from this one without returning a lot of money. They’ve either been caught exceeding the amounts allowed for contributions from individuals and accepting contributions from corporations in a manner not allowed, or they have technically done nothing illegal – having been morally and ethically slippery by redefining unilaterally what are considered donations.
Article comments
1 - rob
Harper being so damned controlling of his MPs and suspicious of the media isn't going to endear him to the majority of Canadian voters, if anything, it will backfire. It smells of arrogance and deceit. To gain the public's trust, you have to open up to them. I'm surprised he hasn't figured that out yet.
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Richard,
Very interesting and informative. However a prime minister operates, he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. For example, had Harper been open with the press and tempering of his decisions, the press would have been all over him for indecision. I'm not defending the man, mind you, merely pointing out that when dealing with the press, it is always a Hobson's choice.
3 - Deano
"There's nothing that a party as corrupt and venal as the Liberals like more than being able to assume the air of violated virgins"
Nice turn of the phrase! Bravo!
4 - RealityBites
I am by no means a defender of Harper or the Conservatives, but in fact Harper has decisively ruled out the use of the notwithstanding clause - in effect admitting the entire exercize is a complete sham, a sop towards the ultra-lunatic fringe of his lunatic party - a group of people whose hatred of minorities is exceeded only by their gullibility.
Also, provinces haven't been quietly passing resolutions allowing equal marriage. There is no need for them to do so, as the definition of marriage is federal. All but two provinces allowed it before the passage of the federal law, as the result of court cases. Bill C38 forced the two remaining provinces (PEI and Alberta, where no court cases had been filed) to comply as well.
5 - Steve
I agree, Ruvy, no government can do anything right when partisans are the ones doing the criticising. Unfortunately, I have heard that some in the media have been proclaiming themselves part of the 'unofficial' opposition to the govt.
Which, of course, is way beyond what the role of the media is supposed to be (i.e. reporting the news). Alas, this idea spouted by some in the Ottawa press gallery has not appeared to receive much debate. Too bad.
After all, the more a govt. is criticised (fairly or unfairly), the more cynical the voting public will become. And the more secretive and untrusting a govt. will be with the media. It's a shame that some in the media fail to realise they are part of the problem.