It has been a long and torturous four years since the legal wrangling over the In-and-Out scheme began. Indeed, it has been so long that we should probably go back to how it all came to light. It began when Elections Canada received a set of remarkably similar invoices filed as campaign expenses for ad buys from various Conservative candidates from the 2006 Election. When Elections Canada investigators showed the invoices to Retail Media Inc., the Toronto "media buying" firm used by the Conservatives, executives from that company claimed not to recognize them. Retail Media stated that they dealt only with the party and "did not generate invoices to candidates or electoral districts." According to the CEO of Retail Media "the invoice must have been altered or created by someone, because it did not conform to the appearance of invoices sent by Retail Media to the Conservative Party of Canada with respect to the media buy.”
From there, the investigation eventually determined how the scheme operated. Having reached the $18.3 million advertising limit given to the Conservative Party for the 2006 election, the party transferred $1.3 million dollars to 67 riding offices that had not yet reached their own $80,000 local advertizing limit. The ridings then immediately returned the money to the party head office, stating that it was being used to purchase advertising. The ads in question were identical to the party's national ads with the exception of a "paid for by..." message in small print that was added to the end of the ad in post-production. In many cases, the ads were also then run in ridings other than that where the expense was being claimed.
Not all Conservative candidates were willing to go along with so obvious an attempt to circumvent election spending laws. Indeed, at least five have since come forward to state that they refused to be involved in such a scheme. None, it must be noted, have remained candidates for the Conservatives.
After four years and several rulings, in February of this year four senior Conservatives including Senators Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein were charged with managing the scheme to circumvent election spending laws, and to allow candidates to attempt to fraudulently claim almost $1 Million in expense refunds from the taxpayers.
Throughout the last election campaign, whenever the case was brought up by opposition Party's to illustrate Conservative disrespect for democracy, the Conservative Party line was that these were unproven allegations that would not bear out in court.
And they didn't bear out in court. They didn't have to. You don't have to prove guilt when the charged plead guilty. And that is exactly what happened last week when the Conservative Party entered into an agreement in Ottawa where they would plead guilty to overspending and pay the maximum fine allowable under the Canada Elections Act if the charges were dropped against their senior members.
One might think that pleading guilty to attempting to circumvent the rules that manage our democracy would be done with an air of regret or remorse. When it comes to the Conservatives, however, you would be wrong. Instead, Conservative spokesman Fred DeLorey issued a statement claiming the plea bargain was "a big victory'' for the party in its five-year "administrative dispute'' with Elections Canada over the legality of the in-and-out scheme. "Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today,'' DeLorey said.
I don't think anyone has ever looked a an agreement that admits guilt as ever clearing anyone of wrongdoing. The notion is ludicrous. The coordinated overspending done by funneling funds through 67 ridings just happened spontaneously? No, the Conservatives accused of wrongdoing were only spared the embarrassment of having their involvement in the scheme dissected in open court rather than being cleared of anything.
To add insult to injury, in the wake of the guilty plea the Ottawa Citizen's Glen McGregor wondered if the Conservative Party would immediately reimburse the taxpayers the $187,298 that had been paid out for expense claims for In-and-Out invoices before the scheme was uncovered and refunds stopped by Elections Canada.
According to Elections Canada, none of the 17 candidates who received reimburse ments have repaid them, and when asked Conservative Party spokesman Fred DeLorey responded that "The question of reimbursements will be dealt with in the ongoing civil proceedings." referring to the civil case the Tories brought against Elections Canada in which they dispute Elections Canada's ability to refuse to reimburse expense claims.
In other words, guilt not just without remorse, without apology, and without even having the decency to immediately repay funds improperly received from the taxpayers that they have already admitted were the result of a scheme to overspend their limits. Indeed, should they win the civil case they would compel Elections Canada to reimburse the outstanding expense claims which they have already agreed were illegal. The nerve of this position is staggering. They admit wrongdoing yet continue to seek a means of profiting from that wrongdoing, trying to have excessive refunds that were requested with fraudulent receipts taken from your tax dollars. Should they win their case they will have effectively neutered Elections Canada as being an effective steward of our democracy, paving the way for future spending limit abuses by all Parties.
To think of a parallel, imagine a system where you could file false paperwork to the Canada Revenue Agency to secure a $1 Million tax rebate. CRA discovers the fraud, you admit the fraud and pay a $52,000 fine, but CRA is still compelled to pay you the full refund that you filed for. It would be rewarding fraud – plain and simple.
When Stephen Harper took office in 2006 after winning that election, one of his first orders of business was to bring in the Accountability Act. When introducing the Act he stated "There’s going to be a new code on Parliament Hill. Bend the rules, you will be punished; break the law, you will be charged; abuse the public trust, you will go to prison." This, of course, was a swipe at the Liberal Party for Adscam.
But let us not forget that when the Liberal Party discovered public funds fraudulently funneled to ridings in Montreal, the guilty were removed from the Party and Paul Martin gave a personal and heartfelt apology to the citizens of the country on behalf of the Liberals. When Elections Canada uncovered public funds fraudulently funneled to ridings by Conservatives we get arrogant crowing about a guilty plea being a “big victory”, a refusal to make restitution, a continuing legal effort to profit from the illegal activity, and a complete lack of remorse, humility, or shame.
If this is the new code on Parliament Hill, it is far from a step in the right direction.
Comments