Monday, October 29, 2007

Blair Wilson Resigns

B.C. Liberal MP resigns from caucus. (CTV)

Good decision.

Steve Janke has more.

And Stephen Taylor has a few questions about Garth Turner's donation practices.

From the Province:
His father-in-law, West Vancouver real estate mogul Bill Lougheed, former Wilson campaign workers and business associates are claiming the MP committed breaches of the Canada Elections Act in failing to report campaign expenses.

Liberal insiders who worked for the candidate in the 2005-2006 election allege Wilson ran a campaign using cash payments and did not report all his spending.

They claim many campaign expenses were never reported to Elections Canada after Wilson, 44, switched his staff in favour of another team.

Last week a citizen in the riding filed an Elections Canada challenge to Commissioner William Corbett to have Wilson's campaign expenditures investigated.

Here is a nice tidy summary of some of Dion's current headaches - Alberta Ardvark. H/T CC.

“It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees”

Update: Province article - Part 2: The real story behind Blair Wilson's business ventures.

And this is a hoot - The Province blogging about bloggers' reactions to the Province's Blair Wilson story.

* * * *
Question Period Update (2:40) - I can't believe it! The Liberals are that stupid to bring up the alleged 'In and Out scheme'. Peter Van Loan is having a heyday with it talking about Blair Wilson; or more correctly, the Member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country.

BTW, fall fiscal update to be tabled tomorrow - CTV.


Anonymous said...

while on the provincial front check out Kinsella's blog today. It actually reads like he supports faith based education in our schools.

Go figure. And here we thought the Liberals were opposed....fools us.

Gayle said...

You know there is a difference between one MP facing allegations of fudging the books, and an entire political party facing these same allegations, right? Janke's attempt to distinguish based on interpretation v. fraud only holds water if the court agrees the conservatives simply "misinterpreted".

I must say I did find his comment about the vetting of candidates amusing - wasn't it the conservatives who ran a candidate in BC during the last election who was charged with fraud during the election?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Gayle, bad apples can surface anywhere. A little disturbing that Dion has so much confidence in him as to appoint him the party's National Revenue critic though...

Gayle said...

I sure he would not have done that if he knew of the allegations.

It would be impossible for party leaders to know all there is to know about their candidates and MP's.

I wonder why it took so long for this to come out actually. If these people were so concerned shouldn't they have said something some time in January, 2006?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

If these people were so concerned shouldn't they have said something some time in January, 2006?

Good question, Gayle. Sounds like a bit of a cover-up. I'm sure it will all come out during the investigation.

Swift said...

It's even worse when the MP responsible for national fund raising is caught using a fund raising method that violates the election act. Usually you appoint some one who has some expertise in the area he is responsible for. Does this mean there is no one in the Liberal caucus that knows the Elections Canada rules?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Swift, great comment! lol!

I can just imagine Peter Van Loan using that one to deflect a Liberal attack in Question Period.

But surely they won't be that stupid to bring up the Conservative election issue? I'm guessing the line of questioning today will be staying on message about Afghanistan.

Just thinking out loud here.

Kingston said...

Gayle, I think your reaching here with your comparisons, The CPC is at most guilty of trying to exploit a loop hole in the Elections Finance Act and at least of being stupid and someone needs to take some reading comprehension classes. Mr.Wilson from what the news reports are telling us, purposely and with fore thought tried to or someone on his election staff circumvent the Elections Finance Act by paying some expenses and wages under the table if these reports are correct. IF these reports are accurate still remain to be seen and I will refrain from making a final judgment until such time as we have a conclusive ruling by Elections Canada .

Anonymous said...

Corrupt Liberals - all corrupt, all the time.

There used to be laws against stealing, cheating, fudging the books, influence peddling, tax evasion(unless those who recieved envelopes stuffed with taxpayer's money declared it?) - these laws still exist apparently, but they don't apply to Liberals.

If they did, then that Party might have a hope in the future.

Roy Eappen said...

The grits are holding a whole bunch of fundraisers in the next few weeks.
They are deeply in debt and have not even paid off the debts of the leadership candidates. This should dampen those fundraisers quite a lot.
Chretien is trying to overturn Gomery in court. The grits are doing all in their power to make sure we never forget adscam.

Gayle said...

kingston - the point of my comparison was that this is but ONE liberal MP, as opposed to the entire political party.

Just below your post anon said:

"Corrupt Liberals - all corrupt, all the time."

It appears some conservative supporters are willing to extrapolate this one man to the entire party. If it is true that one man's transgressions represent the entire party, then it is also true that the conservatives are a bunch of fraud artists - given the fact that the man I mentioned in my first post who was charged and ultimately convicted of fraud ran as a conservative candidate. There is also the former Alliance MP who was convicted of rape - a rape that occurred while he was an RCMP officer. Can we extrapolate from that that all former Alliance party members (including Mr Harper) are rapists?

(Rhetorical question for all those who may think otherwise).

Anonymous said...

Give us a break Gayle. It wasn't one man responsible for the HR boondoggle. It wasnt' one man, who funnelled millions to Quebec ad firms. It was the Liberal party. The whole party's tainted with the corruption brush....and rightfully so.

The Liberals have nothing else.

Kingston said...

Gayle, I do not believe in any of my post I have tarred all LPC members with the proverbial brush, What I believe is as I have stated previously, for you to compare what even if the Election Commissioner has called dis-allowed expenses not eligible for rebates and until such time as the court rules on his assertions, the CPC has not gone over the spending limit,to what the paper are saying was a deliberate and premeditated plan to duck the election limit is not the same thing at all. The election commissioner has not come out and said this was a deliberate plan to screw the Election Finance Act he has said he does not believe that those ad expenses qualify for the 60% rebate from us poor tax payers.
As to if it was a deliberate plan (meaning a few people got together and said screw it let deliberately break the rules), then I will join you in the chorus of CPC bad, and I mean that.

Brian in Calgary said...

There is also the former Alliance MP who was convicted of rape - a rape that occurred while he was an RCMP officer.

Gayle, I know you only referred to Jack Ramsay's conviction as an example of how one should not tar every member of a group with the same brush because of the malfeasance of one member. But you should know that he was NOT convicted of rape. Here's the link to a web-site that gives a description of the Crowfoot riding, but also describes the rape charges. If you don't want to scroll down, here's what it says about the whole sordid story (sorry to be OT, Joanne):

On November 13 , 1998 , Ramsay was charged with sexual assault of one woman and attempted sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl while a member of the RCMP in Pelican Narrows, Saskatchewan in 1969. Ramsay claimed the crime "would never have happened" if she had not let him see her panties. Ramsay admitted that, while questioning the girl as a crime victim in 1969, he needed to know whether she understood the concept of sexual intercourse , and thus asked her to demonstrate it. Ramsay said it was when she unfastened her jeans that he caught the fateful glimpse of her panties. Ramsay was convicted in November 1999 of the attempted sexual assault, and was acquitted in the sexual assault trial of the other woman, however that verdict was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. On October 26 , 2001 , Ramsay was handed a suspended sentence after he decided to plead guilty to indecent assault. Besides the suspended sentence, he was also given one year probation and ordered to perform 120 hours of community service . On May 26 , 2002 , Ramsay sued the Government of Saskatchewan for malicious prosecution. In his statement of claim, Ramsay said the RCMP and the Crown proceeded with charges against him even though they knew the woman accusing him had a history of making rape allegations against police and other public figures. He also said the crown prosecutor Robin Ritter knew one of the women lied at Ramsay's preliminary hearing but did nothing about it.

Gayle said...

kingston - I understand where you compare the two. You are simply ignoring how I do it.

You are comparing the acts, I am comparing the actors.

At no time have I suggested that Wilson is innocent of wrongdoing (nor is he guilty yet).

It is simply that it is wrong to suggest these actions of Wilson reflect on the entire liberal party. On the other hand, the actions of the conservative party certainly reflect on the conservative party.

brian - I stand corrected. The law of "rape" was changed to "sexual assault" some time ago - I thought Ramsey was charged under the old definition. Thanks for pointing that out.

Anon - it is my belief that Adscam is the last grasp of a poster who has nothing useful to say.

Gayle said...

kingston - just to clarify further, I am not suggesting you believe Wilson reflects on the entire liberal party. My original post was directed to the notion that the "In and Out" scheme was nullified by these allegations against Wilson. It is perfectly appropriate for the liberals to ask the conservatives about this scheme in QP.

On the other hand, whether or not Wilson is guilty, he is no longer in caucus pending the investigation, which means the liberals are not trying to justify anything. Instead, they are prepared to rely on the investigations conducted by EC.

Anonymous said...

No Gayle - you and the Liberals have Mr. Cretien for keeping Adscam alive and well in the memories of all Canadians.

The Liberals just keep on feeding the frenzy.

Gordon J. said...

I see this particular crook was first elected in '06. This is the part of the new wave of Liberals. Sounds like they need to go back to the drawing board.

Gayle - you need a new handle. How about "the great apologizer".

Canadians aren't buying the Liberal BS this time around and the Cons won't let them forget it.

The recipe isn't all that complicated. Canadians want clean government.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Canadians want clean government.

Or at least cleaner.

The CPC is still a cleaner shade of gray than the LPC. Nobody's perfect.