Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Things that make you go Mmmm....

Fellow traveller ChuckerCanuk pointed me in the direction of this little nugget by Elizabeth Thompson.

It may shed some light on why Elections Canada went all the way to Toronto to get a judge to sign the warrant. As she said, it obviously wasn't done in order to keep it a secret:

...The folks at Elections Canada were most helpful in letting the media know where the warrant was to be found. Can't be to save gas. The Toronto court house where the warrant was issued is a four hour drive from Elections Canada's HQ which is just a quick walk from the Ottawa courthouse...


Read the whole article for the missing link.

There may actually be something to the conspiracy theory.


(At the very least, Elections Canada is guilty of not shopping locally.)

* * * *
Update: Harper says Tories followed spending rules - CTV.

Steve Janke - The Toronto judge and the warrant.

Stephen Taylor
has an excellent post up - The Elections Canada Raid (supporting information and Conservative response). Alex Panetta had some nice words for Stephen tonight on MDL.


49 comments:

Anonymous said...

No conspiracy theory Joanne. This is reality and it stinks.

Anonymous said...

Yep, I'm beginning to smell a rat.

No,no, I mean lemmings....lots of them.

I believe that Harper's one smart cookie..with nuts just like all other parties.

He's also smarter than the rest. I believe he knows what he's doing.

Kingston said...

In all seriousness Joanne, I really hope there is nothing to this concerning the warrant. My faith in this countries institutions is already severely shaken and if this turns out that some other judge would not issue the warrant and EC circumvented them, I will not be impressed.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

This is reality and it stinks.

It sure does. Just imagine all those unnecessary carbon emissions being spewed all over the place on that trip from Ottawa to Toronto.

nomdeblog said...

I must admit that Elizabeth Thompson is acting like a real investigative journalist on this. A pleasant surprise.

Rick said...

Elections Canada needs to be investigated and the whole Civil Service cleaned up.
Canada is a mess with Liberals being the most corrupt group out there. I'm not saying that the Cons don't have there bad boys and girls however in my 60 years I've never seen such a lack of principles.

Anonymous said...

Conservatives: Everyone's against us and picking on us. It's not fay-er. WAAAAAH!

I must admit that Elizabeth Thompson is acting like a real investigative journalist on this. A pleasant surprise.

She's the one who broke the Conservatives/Civitas meeting with Frank Luntz just after Harper took office. Boy, did Stephen Taylor ever hate that.

JR said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike said...

With respect Joanne:

"Can't be to keep it secret. The folks at Elections Canada were most helpful in letting the media know where the warrant was to be found."

Thompson is wrong. It could have been (and probably was) to keep it a secret. EC were most helpful in letting the media know where the warrant was to be found AFTER it was executed. The point of getting a Superior Court Judge from Toronto to sign off was to keep the warrant a secret BEFORE it was executed. This was to prevent the folks at Conservative Party Headquarters from destroying documents before the warrant was executed. The police and other agencies do this all the time, for operational security purposes.

Oh and that Ottawa courthouse? Its also just down the street from CPC HQ and CPC lawyers are there for their own lawsuit against EC. A warrant issued from there would likely have been found out.

Or, the fact that Ottawa was where the CPC lawsuit was issued means that the possibility that a judge might sign off on the warrant and be involved latter int he lawsuit was very real. I could see EC doing this to avoid that.

But you aren't going to believe me anyway since if I'm not a Conservative, I must be a Liberal (whihc I am not nor never have been).

So enjoy your little conspiracy theory. Don't worry about the fact that the warrant was issued based on the sworn affidavit of the media buyers who stated that invoices issued in their letterhead were not issued by them and appeared to be fakes. I'm sure that's nothing. No, Elections Canada and now Ontario's Justice system are all called into disrepute because you can't accept that the CPC may actually be as corrupt as the Liberals and did something wrong.

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tori said...

ok mike,

but why toronto? surely there must be a judge that could sign off that was a bit closer than toronto...

as for keeping it secret because of the fear of document shredding, was the only piece the ex-rcmp officer took out with him a box that looked like it was about to be mailed somewhere?

correct me if I'm wrong.

maryT said...

I asked a few days ago, who took the warrant to TO to get signed, and who brought it back.
As I have said, this will come back to bite EC and the libs and media you know where. It will take time, but we have till Oct 2009.
And, remember, when this went on the conservatives were NOT THE GOVERNMENT, and polls said the libs would win a larger majority than JC ever did. So, no more accusations the government of the day is corrupt. They did not do this.
And also remember, the liberal government of the day was found not responsible for what some liberal jparty members did re the Sponsorship theft.
FACTS, the govt of PMSH did not do this, it is not an RCMP investigation. Too bad the media doesn't tell us the true facts.

Anonymous said...

You know, accusing someone of committing a serious crime like that is known as libel.

Accusing a state official, like a judge or a police officer of something like this is criminal libel. The police could lay charges whether the target cares or not.

You guys should be careful. You already don't seem to understand the law as it is.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Accusing a state official, like a judge or a police officer of something like this is criminal libel. The police could lay charges whether the target cares or not.

Yep. Can't be too careful. Sorry, J.R.

Gayle said...

What Mike said.

Also:

"if this turns out that some other judge would not issue the warrant and EC circumvented them, I will not be impressed."

Not likely, because legally the affiant must disclose this when he applies for the warrant the second time.

If it did happen that way rest assured everything that was obtained pursuant to that warrant would be excluded from evidence, as it would be if the warrant was obtained illegally for any reason.

You can think Trudeau for that - it is Charter law.

Mark Francis said...

They went to Toronto to keep things quiet. The news of the raid only leaked out just prior to the raid. had it leaked days earlier, who knows how much shredding in CPC headquarters would have been accomplished in the meantime.

Seems a prudent thing to do.

And the warrant was well made. I don't see a judge rejecting it -- regardless of assumed political leanings.

Did anyone here read the warrant? There's some interesting stuff in there, like an allegation that the CPC was fabricating Real Media invoices...

Anonymous said...

Funny...I had a young man steal a large amount of cash from me a month ago...he was drunk, stole the money, went back to his mothers apartment, I call the police, told them what happened, told them where the young man lived, they went to the door, he answered, saw the cops, closed the door.( i was in the hall), the police said they couldnt go in without a warrant, I called the young mans mother (the owner of the apartment), she gave them permission to enter, all this time he was burning the money and flushing pills and drugs down the toilet, the police still couldnt enter, I asked why...they said..and this is why I find Gayles last comment funny...they looked at me and said..."Trudeaus Charter"...it wouldnt stand up in the courts because of this young mans Charter Rights. I was kinda thinkin' the same thing you said Gayle as I could smell my cash being burnt by a 17 year old drunk boy with more rights then he should have had...oh ya...I said a few things about Trudeau too. Sorry to get off topic J. billg

Gayle said...

Yes well Bill, that is kind of my point. Some people don't like the Charter, until they need it.

Do you think the CPC will NOT seek Charter relief if their rights were violated?

Anonymous said...

I Gayle, like 90% of the Canadian population could care less what loophole the CPC found or didnt find in regards to Election funding. This makes the Conservatives look like the Liberals, guilty or not. I, like millions of other Canadians put up with this sort of thing for 13 years under a Liberal Govt, and, I'm guessing until the Libs get their act together I'll have to put up with the Cons for the same amount of time. Although...I do like Mr Harpers "Clint Eastwoods" style of leadership...you know...come and get me if you've got the guts. billg

May said...

Gayle:

I don't disagree with the fact that we have a charter of rights and freedoms in principle (though it should have responsibilities and obligations in there as well; for balance in society; but that’s a side argument), my problem is that I think Trudeau did it wrong (not to mention screwing Quebec over and thus starting the whole separatist thing). I have many problems with the Charter, but I think I will just state my biggest problem with it.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to First Nations.
Neither does the Human Rights Act.

There is an entire class of Canadians who do not have the same human rights as the rest of us because of the colour of their skin. This is of particular concern for women; they have no matrimonial property rights. What this means is a woman cannot own a house. It belongs to a male relative unless there is a husband or boyfriend. If a woman grows up in house and has lived there all her life (and in many cases has children) and has a boyfriend or husband; the house belongs to the boyfriend/husband even though he hasn’t bought it. This is simply because he is male. If they break up the boyfriend/husband owns the house and can kick her out making her (and children if they are there) homeless in an instant. (Note that in some cases the band owns the property and it can’t be bought but the end result is the same). Unfortunately female first nation lobby groups are not very powerful, while chief lobby groups (not in favor of reform) are powerful and hold influence with certain political parties (guess which ones). So to make a long story short, Women can be kicked out of their house at the whim of a man exactly like the freaking 1800s only this is in Canada, in 2008.

As a woman I find it a disturbing outrage that if I had been born First Nation I would have no rights; therefore my rights are due to the colour of my skin. To use the famous saying (anyone who has read “To Kill a Mockingbird” will get this”):

“There but for the grace of God am I.”

May


P.S.

Guess which party is trying to change this and has been trying for the past two years:
A. The Tories

Guess where it is being blocked
A. The liberal senate (In fairness I think the NDP also blocked it in committee)

Over to you Gayle.

Anonymous said...

I'll have to put up with the Cons for the same amount of time.

No chance of that, now that the Conservatives have been caught stealing an election and bribing an MP to influence his vote.

The Liberals could never do all that in so short a time and with a minority.

May said...

Joanne

I have been having a bit of trouble posting lately, I often have to enter the word verification twice even though I'm sure I entered it right the first time.

My apologies for the slightly off topic post above but I had to get that off my chest.

Anonymous said...

Are you willing to put your name to that last comment,saying the Conservatives are theives and accusing them of bribery are pretty big words for a cowardly anonymous.

bert

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, May. Lots of problems lately. ..

I'll take it off for now.

Möbius said...

The CPC communication strategy is seriously fracked up.

They did everything above-board, even attempting to get refunds on expenses, suggesting they believed it was legal and reasonable.

Instead of cooperating fully and openly, they try to hide the facts and mess with the media through favouritism and spin.

SH needs a new communications person and media strategist in a great hurry. They are creating a story where there really is none.

A couple things I don't know:

Who decides if the expenses are reimbursable?

What is the penalty if they're not?

I'm sure, to quote a former PM, it's just a few bad apples responsible for this.

jad said...

Well after all the conspiracy theories, try this:

Paragraph 62 of the affidavit - Retail Media is a Toronto-based company

Paragraph 167 of the affidavit - "An application for a Production Order (for documents to be produced by Retail Media) was submitted to Nordheimer, J of the Superior Court of Justice for the Province of Ontario. On December 14, 2007, His Honour signed the Production Order"

Elections Canada were trying to get original documents, emails, etc. from Retail Media regarding the media buy, and since Retail Media is an Toronto company, they used a Toronto judge to sign the Production Order.

Since Nordheimer was already involved in the case, I guess there is some logic in having him sign the actual search warrant

OMMAG said...

Yahyah... when all the smoke blows away the LIbs will be stuck once again with their own stink.

Happens time after time .....

Gayle said...

May - the issue of property rights for Aboriginal women who live on Reserves is a complex one, and as this post is about something completely different, and as I am not up to speed on all the issues I will limit my response to a couple of your points.

First, the Charter does protect Aboriginals, as it protects every person in this country, citizen or not.

The issue you are referring to is s. 67 of the Human Rights Act which prohibits certain complaints - in particular Aboriginal women on reserves have no means to object to discriminatory decisions made by Band Councils.

This is something that does need to be looked at, and the government bill to repeal s. 67 is currently in the committee stage in Parliament (not the Senate). Contrary to your parroting of the CPC talking points, liberals and NDP are not callously denying Aboriginal women their rights. Instead, after consulting with Aboriginal groups, they have proposed amendments.

No one would ever suggest Aboriginal women should not be treated equally. The concern is the way the CPC are going about it.

I do notice that Aboriginal groups as recently as April 15 spoke out against this government and their failure to ratify a certain UN Treaty.

I do not think Harper has anything to teach us about respecting our First Nations citizens.

wilson said...

hmmmm, thx jad
And another conspiracy theory comes to conclusion.

For every faux scandal the Libs cough up,
we Cons have a conspiracy theory...

Can we just please have an election...?

wilson said...

Ah yes, Gayle, Native issues.
Another Liberal file labeled
'we didn't get it done' (thanks for that quote Iggy).

Kyoto,
Native Rights (Chretien tried, Martin killed the deal),
Immigration....

What the h did you guys do for 13 years ?
Was you biggest accomplishment Adscam?

Gayle said...

What did WE do - do you think I was in government or something?

Off the top of my head, here is a list of a few of their accomplishments:

1. Killed the deficit
2. Started paying down the debt
3. Brought us out of a recession and into a booming economy
4. Cut the unemployment rate
5. Amended the Criminal Code to:
a) create minimum penalties for gun crimes
b) create the DNA database
c) create the sex offender registry
d) provide restraining orders to limit convited pedophiles' access to areas where children are likely to be found
e) gun registry
f) passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act which increases the penalties for violent youth offenders and simplifies to process to transfer them to adult court
g) create the offence of stalking to protect women
6. Amended the Divorce Act to simplify divorces and ensure a more equitable Child Support Guidelines so that children are not left in need after a divorce
7. Corrected the huge injustice of denying gay couples the right to be married

That is just off the top of my head mind you. I am sure if I actually looked stuff up I would find more.

May said...

Gayle:

It's getting late, so I don't have time to have too long a response but I'll do my best:

First off, I don't know what you do; Gayle, but I never parrot CPC talking points. My opinions are my own; I'm not one of those sissies reading off notes. If my opinions and the CPC policy happen to coincide, they must have good policy (in my opinion at least).

All Canadians are citizens including First Nations, but the charter does not protect them.

This (Natives not covered in Charter) was an entire lesson in my high school law class years ago, it’s pretty basic: but here is the main part.

-snip-

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS NOT AFFECTED BY CHARTER.
25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal people of Canada including
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.


-snip-

I.E. charter does not apply; First Nations are covered in separate legislation, Part II right after the Charter.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html#II
As you admitted, they are not covered in the Human Rights Act either.

The liberals and the NDP blocked previous version of Native rights bills as discussed at the time on MDL (very old episodes so I don’t have a link) I seem to remember one of those being a senate committee. They also were instrumental in removing Native Reserves from the AGs jurisdiction in the Accountability Act, even though this was something strongly supported by First Nation Women’s groups (but not by the Chiefs groups). This was also discussed on MDL. The liberals and the NDP both gave the excuse of self government. All Canadians have self government (the right to respective elections) but that doesn’t give the government we elect license to abuse our human rights. First Nations should not be any different.

Women on Reserve do not have matrimonial property rights. You say that that is a problem, but the Conservatives are not going about it properly. First Nation Groups and Mr. Fontaine seem to disagree. The government had major consultations with the First Nations to make sure they got the legislation right, so I don’t see what the liberals and the NDP have a problem with.

The UN treaty is a bunch of feel-good silliness (so is the UN for that matter, but that’s another story) I read that declaration and it says (I’m paraphrasing) “First Nations have the right to consider themselves different and be treated as such” Human rights are all about being treated EQUAL. Martin Luther King marched for black people to go to the same schools as white people, not different schools. We have the Human right to equal treatment, not special treatment. A law that says “you have the right to consider yourself different and be treated as such” basically means “you have the right to be discriminated against.” Thanks for that UN!

Finally, if the liberals are so wonderful, why did they do nothing to remedy this situation after thirteen years in power, mostly with a majority government?

May said...

"It's getting late, so I don't have time to have too long a response but I'll do my best:"

LOL, I am such a liar, that was long. anyway now I really am going to bed, I need to get up early tomorrow.

maryT said...

Gayle, you forgot the NEP, almost losing quebec, the division in canada re ssm, gay rights and a few other of the accomplishments. Downloading to the Provinces so they could appear to balance the budget, adscam, sponsorship, strippers, charter of rights and freedoms, (which is really the charter to deny rights and free speech), freeing terrorist from prison, allowing immigrants with shady pasts into Canada, changes to the income tax act, allowing millions of dollars to leave the country without taxes or penalties, loophole so Paul Martin can avoid taxes. Give me a couple of minutes and I will think of more ways liberals have worked to make us a banana republic.

JR said...

Yep. Can't be too careful. Sorry, J.R.

That's OK Joanne, I understand. Actually it wasn't an accusation but rather a (bad?) joke about cheap Liberals. I neglected to end it with a smile :)

Gayle said...

May - I am familiar with that section of the Charter, and it does not mean the Charter does not apply. It means that it does not take away any other existing rights granted to Aboriginals.

Dictionary:

Abrogate:
to abolish by formal or official means; annul by an authoritative act; repeal

Derogate:
To take away; detract

Thank for your link to the Charter, but I assure you I do not need it. I practically have it memorized. :)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

J.R., I figured you were kidding, but with the 'Thought Police' lurking everywhere, it's not worth the risk.

Gayle said...

Mary - it was the conservatives who caused the rise of the Bloc. The last referundum was a carry over from Mulroney's ill fated attempt to reopen the constitution.

As for the rest...yawn.

biff said...

Overwhelming evidence top liberal party members stole taxpayer funds and distributed to various ridings (adscam)

Elections Canada: no investigation whatsoever to determine who got the stolen money, how it was used, nothing.

The CPC engages in internal funds transfers in a manner done by all of the previous parties.

Elections Canada: engages in the largest most invasive investigation in its history.


This point could not be made often enough. A simple comparison boggles the mind.

biff said...

Adscam.

Sworn evidence accepted by a tribunal that millions of stolen funds was distributed to Liberal ridings. It was beyond the scope of the tribunal to investigate the use of funds in the subsequent election.

What do you think Elections Canada's response to this flashing neon sign pointing to impropriety was?

It's like a beat cop walking past the guy holding a smoking gun over the bloody corpse, to give the "unwanted type" across the street a frisking for littering.

Gayle said...

For those of you who wonder why Adscam was not investigated by EC, the answer is simple.

At the time Adscam was exposed the limitation period in which an offence under the EA could be prosecuted was 1.5 years from the commission of the offence. Adscam was not exposed until after this period of time had lapsed.

That time period is now changed to 7 years from the time the infraction is discovered (s. 514 of the EA). The Act was changed in order to close that obvious loophole:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0579-e.htm#cextension

C. Extension of Limitation Period for Prosecution of Offences

Allegations made at the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities concerning breaches of the financial reporting obligations under the Canada Elections Act were the impetus for the recommendation to extend the limitation period for commencing a prosecution under the Act from the current seven years to ten years. The Chief Electoral Officer maintains in his report that the current limitation renders him incapable of pursuing allegations of the kind made during the Commission of Inquiry, which go back to dates outside the limitation period.

Complain about the liberals and Adscam all you want, but you cannot blame EC for complying with the law.

Gabby in QC said...

"... it was the conservatives who caused the rise of the Bloc. The last referundum was a carry over from Mulroney's ill fated attempt to reopen the constitution."

Dearest Gayle, that describes your interpretation of events, not necessarily reality.

The last referundum (sic) was the culmination of Quebecers' anger over the failure of Meech,

The final deadline for ratifying Meech was June 22 1990. The very next day, Jean Chretien won the leadership of the Liberal Party, and he showed his disdain for Meech by going out of his way to embrace Newfoundland's Clyde Wells, one of the main opponents of the accord. The bitterness of that event is etched into my memory. That rejection caused Jean Lapierre to quit the Liberal Party and join with Progressive Conservative Lucien Bouchard, among others, to form the Bloc.

Thanks to the handiwork of Trudeau and his acolytes to defeat Meech, the constitution was not amended, and Quebecers’ disappointment was translated into a renewed nationalism, eventually leading to the 1995 referendum.

http://tinyurl.com/3sux5e
«L'échéance prévue pour la ratification de l'accord du lac Meech par les provinces se termine sans l'appui du Manitoba et de Terre-Neuve. L'échec de cet accord, qui visait à faire sortir le Québec de son isolement constitutionnel, entraînera un regain du mouvement nationaliste québécois. ...

L'enthousiasme manifesté par les nationalistes québécois le 24 juin, lors de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, et les résultats de sondages effectués auprès de l'opinion publique démontrent que l'échec de cette entente s'est traduit par un regain de popularité important pour l'option souverainiste.»

Gayle said...

Daerest gabby - I am well aware of the order of events.

Mulroney never should have opened that can of worms, and then he fanned the flames of separatism by caving into all kinds of demands from the Quebc nationalists in his party.

When the rest of Canada understandably objected, the nationalists left to form the Bloc.

I love Quebec, but I do not believe catering to her separatists is the way to keep our country strong and united.

frmgrl said...

Chantal Herbert has a very good article in the Star today about how much Elections Canada has at stake.

That's why I think they did what they did as far as this so called "raid" goes. According the Chantal , EC has much at stake here. From what I gathered from her article their credibilty is on the line

Gabby in QC said...

"Daerest gabby - I am well aware of the order of events."

Your previous comment would suggest otherwise, and whether you want to admit or not, the fact remains that it is YOUR opinion, which needless to say I don't agree with, and neither your interpretation nor mine is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So, for someone who always demands proof from others for their case, you actually furnish none.
“Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us!" Robert Burns.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Frmgrl, I saw that this morning too. Link here. An excellent article and a most interesting perspective.

The onus will be on Elections Canada to prove their impartiality.

Thanks for reminding me about this piece.

Gayle said...

gabby - there is no need to prove an opinion - that is what makes it an opinion.

And I agree this is a matter of opinion. I just happen to disagree with Mary's opinion on this point.

Anonymous said...

Reality is something those suffering from Leftist Mental Disorder can never perceive.

Anonymous said...

The judge who signed off on the warrant contributed financially to Justice Minister Alan Rock's election campaign in 1997 and was appointed to the bench two years later by the then current Justice Minister Anne McLelland.

Nothing stinks here folks, the Lieberals are up to their usual dirty tricks, lying, cheating, thieves that they are.

Fog Ducker