Court tells Elections Canada to accept Tory cash

[GAP]

Court tells Elections Canada to accept Tory cash
Article Link

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Friday Jan. 1, 2010 6:23 PM ET

The Conservatives have won an arcane court battle with Elections Canada that will force the agency to accept a $591,000 cheque from the party.

"This may be the first time in history that a political party went to court to try to give money back to Elections Canada," said a Conservative memo released on Thursday.

The Conservatives say they had brought the application against Elections Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to prevent so-called "rebate double-dipping."

The Tories explained that "double-dipping" happens when political parties receive both a GST rebate and an Elections Canada rebate for the same campaign expenses.

Elections Canada did not want to accept the funds because the GST rebate is meant to offer financial support for political parties, which are listed as non-profit organizations.

Before the case went to trial, the country's chief electoral officer, Marc Mayrand, wrote a lengthy letter outlining his position: "Like the reimbursement of election expenses under the Canada Elections Act, (it) is intended as a form of support and does not serve to eliminate tax indebtedness."

Mayrand was also concerned that taking back the funds could result in an unfair advantage for some parties, because those that give back the rebate can then spend more on their election campaigns.

However, Justice H.J. Wilton-Siegel sided with the Tories, meaning that the party's 2004 and 2006 finances will now be rewritten to reflect the changes.
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here is more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-sides-with-tories-on-gst-rebates/article1418552/

Judge sides with Tories on GST rebates
Ontario Superior Court ruling effectively raises election spending limits

Bruce Cheadle

Ottawa — The Canadian Press

Published on Monday, Jan. 04, 2010

Elections Canada says it is reviewing the implications of a court ruling that effectively raises the campaign spending limits for the major federal political parties.
The New Year's Eve judgment by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sided with the Conservative Party – and agreed the party must be allowed to repay taxpayers more than $590,000 in GST rebates from the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

The Conservatives voluntarily called themselves out more than a year ago on what they described as a case of “rebate double-dipping.” Mr. Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel concurred.

“I conclude that general election expenses must be presented net of any GST rebate to the extent required by [generally accepted accounting principles],” he wrote in his judgment.

Judge Wilton-Siegel ruled that Parliament never intended to treat the GST rebate for non-profit organizations – including political parties – as a “subsidy.” Rather, he wrote, the rebate is “simply a mechanism for administering the stipulated rate of tax” for such groups.

The practical impact, the judge noted, will be to increase the amount parties can spend in future elections.

“It is not disputed that the applicant's interpretation of the act benefits political parties . . . by increasing the spending limits otherwise applicable to each of them by an amount equal to the GST rebates received by them respectively.”

Elections Canada, which had argued that accepting the Conservative repayment would lead to an uneven playing field between larger and smaller political parties, responded cautiously Monday.

“We're going to take the time necessary to review the decision,” John Enright, spokesman for Elections Canada, said in an interview.

He declined to speculate on whether the ruling may compel the cash-strapped Liberals to refund similar amounts from their 2004 and 2006 election filings. The court judgment was silent on this.

While the case related to the 2004 and 2006 campaigns, Judge Wilton-Siegel wrote, “it must be approached as a matter of interpretation on the basis that the issue applies on a going-forward basis to future elections.”

Liberal spokesman Daniel Lauzon said the party is considering what could be owed for past elections as well as how it will conduct itself in future campaigns.

“We've taken note of the court's decision and we're exploring how that will affect the Liberal party, going forward,” Mr. Lauzon said. “We're still in the exploratory phase right now.”

Conservative Party lawyer Arthur Hamilton said the court judgment applies “100 per cent” to other political parties.

“We're all trying to come to grips with just how significant this is,” Mr. Hamilton said in an interview.

“Presumably this is something that the political parties – now that the decision has been made – will have to revisit their election filings and repay those amounts.”

The issue boils down to political parties receiving rebates from Elections Canada for 50 per cent of all campaign expenses, then receiving an additional 50 per cent rebate from the Canada Revenue Agency for GST payments that had been part of that initial campaign total.

Only political parties that apply for non-profit organization status can get the GST rebates. To achieve that status, the organization must get at least 40 per cent of its funding from the government.

The NDP has said it never applied for the GST rebates, but both the Conservative and Liberal parties did.

The Conservative Party sent an internal memo to supporters on Dec. 31, heralding the court ruling and claiming “you aren't likely to read about this in the mainstream media.” The party, however, did not notify the media of the judgment.

On Monday, four days later, Conservative spokesman Fred Delorey was reprising word-for-word the same talking points in response to media inquiries. “This may be the first time in history that a political party went to court to try to give money back to Elections Canada.”

Despite repeated inquiries however, Mr. Delorey was unable to say exactly how much the party is repaying. Earlier court filings suggested the figure was in the neighbourhood of $591,000, but the judgment refers to a figure of just over $701,000.

The upshot is:

1. This effectively raises election spending limits – Advantage Conservatives;

2. It might force the cash strapped Liberals to pay their back taxes, too – Advantage Conservatives; and

3. This makes the Tories look good a wee tiny bit less bad – Advantage Conservatives.

Good tactics, from every angle.

 

[armyvern]

The upshot is:

1. This effectively raises election spending limits – Advantage Conservatives;

2. It might force the cash strapped Liberals to pay their back taxes, too – Advantage Conservatives; and

3. This makes the Tories look good a wee tiny bit less bad – Advantage Conservatives.

Good tactics, from every angle.

Which is most likely why they had to take Elections Canada to court to be able to pay it back ...

Reminds me of the "raid" on the Conservative Party at the behest of Elections Canada just a while ago in which the media (and the Liebrals) had been "tipped off" to prior ~ ~

Can you say "KARMA"? Such a nice word it is.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And if disappearing tax breaks aren’t enough, this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, points out, individual Liberals still cannot pay of their ‘leadership’ campaign debts from 2006:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Would+Liberal+leaders+miss+2006+debt+deadline/2405575/story.html

Would-be Liberal leaders miss 2006 debt deadline
Campaign loan extensions for six MPs expired New Year’s Eve


BY GLEN MCGREGOR, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

JANUARY 5, 2010
 
OTTAWA — Six MPs who ran for the Liberal leadership in 2006 — including eventual winner Stéphane Dion — have missed the year-end deadline to repay loans made to their campaigns, the party says.

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand in 2008 granted the candidates 18-month extensions to pay off debts, but the party admits tough economic times and the recurring possibility of another election meant they couldn’t meet the date.

Dion and MPs Gerard Kennedy, Martha Hall-Findlay, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Joe Volpe and Hedy Fry were all given extensions that expired on New Year’s Eve.

“Due to a difficult fund-raising environment, including a recession, a general election and constant election speculation, some of the campaigns have indicated they will require more time to repay their debt,” wrote Liberal director of communications Daniel Lauzon in an e-mail.

As Mayrand is not allowed to grant further extensions, the candidates are left in a difficult position. If they can raise the money, they must get permission from a judge to pay off their loans. Otherwise, the outstanding debts will be treated as campaign contributions under the law.

Because most of the loans were in five or six figures, the amounts that are converted to “deemed contributions” could be in violation of the Canada Elections Act, which caps donations at $1,100 per contributor per campaign.

That would prove awkward for a party that has repeatedly hammered the ruling Conservative party for alleged violations of the elections law through “in and out” advertising purchases in the 2006 campaign.

“The party will assist the campaigns in co-ordinating the next steps to ensure full compliance with the act,” Lauzon wrote. “‘Next steps’ include legal counsel.”

The exact amount of the outstanding debts are not known. The candidates have until the end of January to report payments made before the end of 2009, Elections Canada says.

Lauzon said he didn’t know exactly how much is at play and referred questions back to the candidates’ campaigns.

According to an interim report Dion filed in July, his campaign had taken loans of $905,000 and by the end of June had made loan payments of $825,000 — leaving $80,000 outstanding, not including the six per cent interest. The campaign was also facing a $14,000 shortfall between spending and income.

Anthony Cherwenka, the official agent for Dion, declined to say how much the campaign still owed by the end of the year and referred questions back to the party.

The late payments reflect the challenge of raising money for unsuccessful leadership campaigns from three years ago and, in the case of Dion, a winning bid followed by a moribund stint in the top Liberal job.

The fundraising task is compounded by election finance reforms brought in by the Tories’ Federal Accountability Act, which eliminated corporate and union donations and capped contributions from a single donor at $1,100.

That means a few benefactors cannot step in to erase the debts. They must be paid down through a series of smaller contributions from many contributors.

Hall Findlay said she wasn’t sure exactly how much her campaign still owed, but said she had been bringing the total debt down steadily.

“For everybody, having all this happening in minority governments, when we’re having to fight elections or be prepared, in combination with the much tougher rules, has made it more difficult.”

It is harder still, she said, because contributions are limited to $1,100 per campaign, not per year, so the amount a contributor can give doesn’t reset with a new year.

“The pool of people inclined to donate to a leadership campaign, you can imagine, has been pretty much mined.”

Some candidates for the leadership did manage to pay off their campaign debts. Current leader Michael Ignatieff, and MPs Bob Rae, Carolyn Bennett and Scott Brison have all closed the books on their 2006 leadership bids. MP Ken Dryden has until the end of June to repay his loans.

Brison made his final loan payments to Nova Scotia businessmen Donald Sobey and David Hennigar on Dec. 5. Brison said the $1,100 limit imposed by the Tories made fundraising difficult.

“It was heavy lifting,” he said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen​

This is, truly, the gang that cannot shoot straight, nor can it balance its own cheque books. What’s truly amazing is that 30%± of Canadians are solidly, irrevocably convinced that these clowns should be trusted to govern the country.

Looks like the Liberal Party will have to dig into its (small) cash reserves to bail out its would-be leaders just when an election campaign may be in the offing.  Advantage: Conservatives!

 

[old fart]

A quote by Chretien many years ago (1995) comes to mind, "I think we should dismantle it".......

In this case, the Liberals.....

Advantage, EVERYBODY.