Robocall et al issue - Fed 2011 election

[a_majoor]

Interesting take on the use of Robocalls in the Wi recall elections. Notice the pattern of creating some sort of narrative, then dropping it when events don't turn out as planned. This is circumstancial evidence that the entire Robocall thing was manufactured post ex facto (look upthread and see how few calls Elections Canada received prior to the story breaking, for that matter consider how fast the story vanished once no factual evidence could be established for the supposed 10's of thousands of robocalls).

http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2012/06/whatever-happened-to-those-robocalls.html

Whatever happened to those robocalls telling people who'd signed the Walker recall petitions they didn't have to vote in the recall election?

Everyone was talking about them on June 5th, the day of the recall election. The talk was of reports that some people said they got these calls. Now the election is over, and no one is talking about it anymore. Did anyone ever record one of these phone calls and put it up on YouTube? And where has all the outrage gone?

So I'll stir up outrage right now about the reports, dumped on the public on election day. Were the reports fake? If they weren't fake, where is the evidence? If they were real, who made these calls? Actual Walker supporters or Walker opponents?

Since the reports were made in a manner and at a time when it served the interests of Walker opponents, I always suspected Walker opponents of either faking the reports or generating the calls to cause the reports. I'm even more suspicious now that the subject has been dropped. If the calls were real and really made by Walker supporters, the opponents who claimed they got the calls or claimed they heard complaints about the calls would have an interest now in laying out the evidence. The silence is telling.

 

[a_majoor]

If there was justice in the world, this individual and the various enablers of the "Robocall" story would be served with monster lawsuits for defamation and made to pay huge amounts of damages. The legacy news agencies should also be forced to make public apologies (although promoting lies as their lead story for so long will further destroy their credibility and damage their ratings, the market will indeed take care of them).

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2012/08/crucial-robocall-claimant-revealed-to.html

Crucial robocall claimant revealed to be a liar

Does the name Annette Desgagne ring a bell?

She's the call centre worker who was conscripted to the pro-robocall conspiracy side.  As a former employee of Responsive Marketing Group (RMG), a call centre doing calls for the Conservative Party during the last election, Desgagne approached dumpster-diving "journalists" Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor with stunning revelations.

Desgagne alleged that she was ordered to deliberately mislead voters by calling and telling them their polling station had changed.  She even put these allegations in writing, filing an affidavit for the pro-robocall conspiracy Council of Canadians.

It's pretty convincing and convenient, especially for the "journalists" who have been attempting to ram this non-existent scandal down our throats for months now without the slightest shred of evidence.

But she made it all up!

Andrew Langhorne, Chief Operating Officer of RMG, released a detailed affidavit of his own yesterday, including the actual scripts Desgagne and her fellow employees were told to use.

Neither RMG nor the Conservatives ever told call centre employees to contact non-supporters, and it was always clear that the caller was to immediately identify themselves as calling from the Conservative Party. In fact, the entire script was:

“Hi, I’m calling for (name from list),”
“This is (first name) with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives."
"Your candidate (Candidate name) asked me to call you.”
"Elections Canada has changed some voting locations at the last moment,”


at which point the caller asked the voter to verify the information on their voter information card, and if the information was different, the voter was told the new polling address.

Of course, Elections Canada did change some polling locations, and these calls only went to Conservative supporters, meaning it was in the Conservatives' interest to give accurate information.

In fact, RMG has tracked and listened to Desgagne's calls, and in the 20 calls she made she stuck to the script!  Even in Desgagne's affidavit she acknowledges her fellow employees were going off script without manager or Conservative Party approval (page 4).

So we have a call centre employee who followed her script and did nothing wrong.  Yet when the fake story broke that the election was unfair, Desgagne surely saw dollar signs.

Was she approached by the Council of Canadians? The NDP? The Liberal Party? Another left-wing front group? As an RMG employee involved in the 2011 election, was she paid to file a bogus affidavit to support a bogus lawsuit just to stir up headlines and bonus cheques for Maher and McGregor?

This fake "scandal" has been dead since it broke headlines. These are the real questions that need answering now.

 

[ModlrMike]

So now the question is: what will this do to the case before the courts?

 

[a_majoor]

Well, the truth finally comes out:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2012/r120824.htm

Guelph Federal Liberal Association in violation of Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules

Association pays $4,900 penalty, undertakes comprehensive compliance program

OTTAWA-GATINEAU, August 24, 2012 — Today, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced that a Notice of Violation has been issued to the Guelph Federal Liberal Association (“the Association”) on behalf of Frank Valeriote. The Notice of Violation involved Robocalls made on April 30, 2011, which did not comply with the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules. As part of a settlement, a penalty of $4,900, has been imposed. The calls involved an election advertising message and were made during the 2011 Federal election campaign in Guelph.

The violations involved a pre-recorded message sent by the Association that failed to identify on whose behalf the call was made; provide necessary call-back information; and display the originating telephone number or an alternate number where the originator could be reached. The calls were made over a period of approximately one hour.

“We appreciate that Mr. Valeriote and the Association fully cooperated with our investigation and committed to comply with the Rules in future campaigns,” said Andrea Rosen, the CRTC’s Chief Compliance and Enforcement Officer. “We expect political party associations and candidates who are running for office to put appropriate safeguards in place to ensure compliance with the rules.”

In addition to paying an administrative monetary penalty, the Association and Mr. Valeriote have agreed to implement a compliance program that includes:

acknowledgement of all applicable rules and a commitment to comply fully with them
appointment of a Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules compliance officer
an education and training program for volunteers
appropriate record retention
appropriate compliance measures with 3rd party service providers
promotion of better awareness of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules
The CRTC applies the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules in order to reduce unwanted calls to Canadians. Under its enforcement process, the CRTC can discuss corrective actions with individuals, firms or organizations engaged in telemarketing, which may lead to a settlement that includes a monetary penalty and other corrective measures.

The CRTC
The CRTC is an independent public authority that regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in Canada.




- 30 -



Follow us on Twitter @crtceng

Media Relations:
MediaRelations, Tel: 819-997-9403, Fax: 819-997-4245

General Inquiries:
  Tel: 819-997-0313, TDD: 819-994-0423, Fax: 819-994-0218
  Toll-free # 1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
  TDD - Toll-free # 1-877-909-CRTC (2782)
  Ask a question or make a complaint

These documents are available in alternative format upon request.

as one blogger puts it:

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2012/08/liberals-caught-red-handed-in-robocall.html

Liberals caught red-handed in robocall scandal
Well, whatd'ya know?

Following months of baseless smear allegations against the Conservative Party, it turns out the illegal robocalls in Guelph were coming from the Liberals all along!

Today the CRTC announced the Guelph Liberal Association was in violation of CRTC telecommunications rules, fining them $4,900 and forcing the currently-sitting Liberal MP to undertake a "comprehensive compliance program."

How far did these illegal activities reach? How many votes were improperly swayed as a result of this illegal behaviour? Who in the Liberal leadership was involved?  And, most importantly, when is the Guelph byelection?

Let's see how long it takes for this inconvenient fact to appear in the Toronto Star, CBC, or Globe and Mail...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'll bet all the alleged robocall complaints to Elections Canada, from 'concerned citizens' drops off substantially from this point.

Add another nail in the coffin of the 'Natural Governing Party' :

 

[estoguy]

I'll bet all the alleged robocall complaints to Elections Canada, from 'concerned citizens' drops off substantially from this point.

Add another nail in the coffin of the 'Natural Governing Party' :

And something in me says they won't be able to pull off a Conservative-type comeback.  A lot of people are tauting St. Justin as their savior, but I think its a mirage.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Manitoba motormouth MP Pat Martin is learning that shooting from the lip and putting the mouth in motion before the brain is started has financial consequences according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-mp-seeks-publics-help-with-legal-bills-in-robo-calls-case/article4535075/

NDP MP seeks public’s help with legal bills in robo-calls case

STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Sep. 10 2012

An NDP MP is turning to the Internet to cover his legal bills in the face of a lawsuit for wrongly accusing an Alberta company of electoral fraud.

Supporters and friends of Pat Martin are trying to raise $250,000 after the Winnipeg MP was sued for comments he made about the 2011 election robo-calls scandal.

A new website, the Pat Martin Legal Defence Fund, is soliciting contributions.

“The court case is proceeding and legal expenses are mounting,” the website says.

“We are reaching out to supporters for help in meeting these costs and we appreciate any contribution you might make.”

In an interview via e-mail, Mr. Martin said it’s estimated he would need up to a quarter-million dollars to defend himself – and so that’s the target for fundraising. The NDP is also being sued.

Elections Canada is trying to find the fraudster behind thousands of misleading calls made to non-Conservative voters in Guelph, Ont., during the May 2, 2011, election. These voters were sent to the wrong polling station, a ploy that discouraged some from voting.

This past February Mr. Martin, who’s never shy in front of a reporter’s microphone, accused RackNine Inc. and CEO Matt Meier of involvement in the matter. RackNine’s equipment was used to make the misleading robo-calls.

On Feb. 23, during a news conferfence, Mr. Martin compared RackNine with Groupaction Marketing Inc., a company whose president has been convicted of fraud in relation to the sponsorship scandal that hurt the Liberal Party in the 2000s.

“I predict that RackNine will become the Conservative Party’s Groupaction, and I predict that we will find that the sheer magnitude and audacity of the ‘ RackNine rascals’ will be enough to make Richard Nixon blush,” Mr. Martin said in February.

But Elections Canada has said RackNine is not under investigation and Mr. Meier has co-operated extensively with the watchdog to help track down the culprit, saying he had no idea his dialing equipment was being misused.

RackNine served notice it would sue.

Many weeks later, Mr. Martin eventually offered a blanket apology on paper and in front of journalists.

“RackNine was merely an innocent intermediary, not a participant in electoral fraud,” Mr. Martin said April 16 at a brief Parliament Hill news conference.

But Alberta’s RackNine is still proceeding with a suit against Mr. Martin as well as one against the New Democratic Party.

RackNine is seeking $5-million. There have been attempts to settle but these have so far failed.

Mr. Martin said the House of Commons might cover some of his legal costs – but he can’t predict what.

“The House may pick up some of my costs based on the outcome of the lawsuit,” he said. “In the meantime the legal costs are staggering.”

He said fundraising is being undertaken for him because the party has its own legal bills to cover. “The party has its own case to defend,” Mr. Martin said. “This is my problem and I’m handling it as best I can. I’m very grateful to … trustees of the Defence Trust Fund for their support and kicking off this fund raising drive.”

He said the distances between himself, his lawyers and the plaintiffs are contributing to the cost.

“It’s extraordinarily expensive and costs are compounded by the fact the case is being heard in Alberta and my lawyers are in Toronto and I’m in Ottawa,” Mr. Martin said.

Preparations “involves teams of lawyers on both sides flying around the country.”

RackNine alleged in its statement of claim that Mr. Martin’s comments “carried the innuendo that [the firm] had committed criminal activity, fraudulent activity, participated in a conspiracy, intimidation, sabotage and/or deceit.”

Mr. Martin says any unused cash raised will be donated to the Children’s Wish Foundation and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

I have met Mr. Martin ... I washed my hands immediately afterwards; I found it very easy to dislike him; he comes across, especially in committees, as a bully and a blowhard. I sincerely hope he comes up empty and gets financially ruined because of his big mouth ~ it couldn't happen to a nicer more appropriate guy.

 

[GAP]

His riding is uber NDP....all CN/exCN area, plus a huge chunk of strident NDPers.....they love him.

Mind.....they loved Bill Blakie in his riding too, but it went conservative...

 

[Edward Campbell]

His riding is uber NDP....all CN/exCN area, plus a huge chunk of strident NDPers.....they love him.

Mind.....they loved Bill Blakie in his riding too, but it went conservative...

There is a fundamental difference, in my opinion, between Bill Blaikie, who I also had the pleasure of meeting, and Pat Martin: Mr. Blaikie is a gentleman and, in his heart, a public servant in the best sense of that word; Martin is neither ... arsehole is the word that pops to mind.

 

[ModlrMike]

He who lives by the sword... etc, etc. It will be interesting seeing how this plays out.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Former Tory staffer Michael Sona, who was at the center of the robocall thing for a while, has finally broken his silence in the Huffington Post. It's a long, somewhat sad, probably self serving interview, but this bit, near the end, stood out:

"Sona is also upset with Elections Canada.

He said a damning quote its investigator, Al Mathews included in court filings tarnished his reputation.

Mathews claimed a Conservative staffer had informed him that Sona had called headquarters to enquire about setting up a campaign of disinformation.

And several months later, Mathews acknowledged in a footnote of another production order, that the quote in question had never been said.

“Of course, that was not released on the front page of the newspaper, that was released in a footnote, 30 pages down in a 36 page court document from Elections Canada,” Sona said, visibly upset.

He wants a public apology but he knows he’s unlikely to get it."


Edit: punctuation

 

[a_majoor]

The technical term for what is happening here is spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) on election results and the political process. There is no case here based on the evidence, and indeed what case there is to be made about Robocalls was decided a long time ago with a finding and a fine directed against the Liberal campaign in Guelph. But the Progressives are determined to soldier on, knowing that the facts are mostly being ignored (how many articles or news reports emphasize there has not been a single affidavit to the effect someone was prevented from voting?) and they can continue to nurture the seeds of doubt in low information voter's minds:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/18/an-assault-on-democracy-robocalls-trial-ends-with-call-for-fresh-elections-in-six-ridings/

‘An assault on democracy’: Robocalls trial ends with call for fresh elections in six ridings

Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher, Postmedia News | Dec 18, 2012 8:48 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 18, 2012 8:57 AM ET
More from Postmedia News
 
OTTAWA — The Federal Court should trigger new elections in six ridings because of an “assault on the building block of democratic society,” the lawyer leading a legal challenge of the 2011 vote has argued.

On the last day of hearings into the so-called robocalls case, Steven Shrybman told the court that evidence showing a pattern of vote-suppressing telephone calls that may have kept hundreds of voters away from the ballot box was more compelling than any one person’s claim of disenfranchisement.

Lawyers for six Conservative MPs who would face byelections if the challenge is successful have argued that Shrybman’s case is weak, because he hasn’t produced evidence of individuals in the ridings in question who were prevented from voting by the calls.

“The perpetrators and victims are hard to find in a case like this,” Shrybman admitted.

But his clients, he claimed, had “adduced evidence that is far superior” to a single voter swearing an affidavit saying that he or she didn’t vote. (interpolation: WTF?)

Related

    Robocalls case could open up elections to ‘poking and prodding’ from constant lawsuits, Tory lawyer argues
    Robocalls stopped at least one Quebec man from casting his ballot
    ‘Character assassination’: Robocalls court case gets testy over pollster’s treatment by Conservative lawyer
    Shutting down robocalls challenge will have chilling effect, lawyer argues

As Shrybman concluded his case, Justice Richard Mosley asked whether he agreed with Elections Canada counsel Barbara McIsaac, who last week argued that the Supreme Court’s recent Opitz decision showed that to overturn an election, he would have to show a voter in each riding who didn’t vote as a result of the calls.

Shrybman accepted McIsaac’s argument.

“We have the onus to establish beyond the balance of probability, that fraud occurred, and affected the outcome of the election, which the Supreme Court has told us means that at least one voter didn’t cast a vote,” he said Monday.

The eight applicants in the case all voted, but Shrybman argues that a survey conducted by EKOS Research shows that fraud did occur, as does evidence from widespread Elections Canada investigations into live and pre-recorded robocalls in Guelph and more than 200 other ridings across the country.

    Our long-term goal is really just to be sure that this never happens again, that Canadians can feel confident on election day, that it’s a free and honest election

Shrybman’s final arguments brought to an end six days of hearings into litigation brought by eight voters who want the court to overturn the results in six ridings won by Conservative candidates.

A decision in the case is not expected until well into the New Year, possibly as late as April.

The Council of Canadians, the advocacy group that financially backed the applicants, said that even if the legal bid proves unsuccessful, it dug up new evidence and raised Canadians’ awareness of voter suppression.

“People who might have got a call like that and thought nothing of it will not respond like that again in the next election,” she told reporters. “And our long-term goal is really just to be sure that this never happens again, that Canadians can feel confident on election day, that it’s a free and honest election.”

The Conservative Party issued a statement at the end of the hearing, calling on the court to “dismiss this transparent attempt to overturn these certified election results and to not disenfranchise the over 200,000 people who voted.”

The statement from party spokesman Fred DeLorey noted that the applicants did not present evidence from a single witness in the six ridings who claimed to have been kept from voting by misleading calls.

“It speaks volumes that despite the Council of Canadians’ vigorous search and nationwide media attention, it was not able to produce a single elector to testify that he or she was prevented from voting,” the statement said. “Not being able to produce a single elector to testify that he or she was prevented from voting makes it increasingly apparent that this is a political activist campaign masquerading as a lawsuit — a left-wing group is seeking to overturn democratic elections because it doesn’t like how people voted.”

Judge Mosley now must decide based on the evidence whether to void the election results in some, none or all six of the ridings at issue.

Whatever his decision, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada seems almost inevitable. When an Ontario court voided the election of Conservative MP Ted Opitz earlier this year, the party successfully appealed to the top court. The party also challenged a lower court decision over its financing of the 2006 election campaign, the in-and-out scandal, but abandoned the Supreme Court appeal in the days after news of Elections Canada’s robocalls investigation surfaced.

Maude Barlow, national chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, said her organization would be willing to consider backing an appeal in this case, should the judge rule in favour of the MPs.

Mosley concluded the hearing Monday by saying the necessity to translate his decision into French would increase the “considerable” time it will take before it is handed down.

His decision will have no bearing on Elections Canada’s ongoing investigations in Guelph and elsewhere, which are continuing.

 

[ModlrMike]

If this were truly a non-partisan inquiry, then the Council of Canadians would have included Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup (5 votes in favour of NDP), and Winnipeg North (45 votes in favour of Liberals) in the action. That they have only contested ridings won by Conservative candidates speaks volumes. Unfortunately, most Canadians interested in the case will turn a deaf ear to the obvious.

 

[a_majoor]

What is to be done when the suposedly non partisan organs of government are corrupted? In the post just above we see how "neutral" the targeting is (if the NDP or Liberals win by a handfull of votes, everything is OK....), and the way the entire thing has played out is a singular record of mendacity:

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/02/robocalls-investigators-have-donated.html

Robocalls investigators have donated money to Liberals, Bloc Quebecois

New information reveals not even the private contractors hired by Elections Canada to investigate the possible 2011 "robocalls" are neutral, non-partisan individuals.

Information on who the private contractors conducting the "robocalls" investigation are is scarce, but the very fact that Elections Canada has outsourced one of its vitally important responsibilities to private firms is shocking.

It is even more shocking that such responsibility has been delegated to paper companies: private companies with no website, no phone numbers, and no email addresses, which only seem to exist in the eyes of Elections Canada. Google searches bring up nothing more than Elections Canada's listings of contracts (and perhaps the odd LinkedIn profile).

Certainly the least Elections Canada could have done before hiring these private contractors was to ensure they were hiring neutral, non-partisan individuals. Especially with the odd and significant amount of recurring $78,444.35 contracts, Canadians deserve to know that their tax money is being put towards professional, neutral individuals.

But that's not the case according to a search of Elections Canada's contributors' database.

A search of the sole contractor involved in the robocalls investigation with a website - Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton - reveals that many members on their board of directors have donated money to the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois - the same parties which have the most to gain in propagating any sort of "robocall" voter conspiracy myth, ramping up the rhetoric to the extent that some members are now being sued for slander and libel.

In July 2008, Emilio Imbriglio, Chair of Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, donated $300 to the Liberals. In January 2009, he donated $1000 to the Michael Ignatieff leadership campaign.

In February 2010, Eric Bergeron, Assurance Partner, donated $375 to the Liberals.

Marc Bergeron, Vice President of Recovery and Reorganization, donated $287.79 to the Liberals in June 2007; another $340 in August; and another $250 in December.

Lynda Coache, Assurance Partner, donated $255 to the Liberals on February 28, 2010.

Martin Deschenes, Assurance Partner, donated $405 to the Liberals on February 28, 2010 and $400 to the Bloc Quebecois on June 8, 2011.

Eric Labelle, Tax Partner, donated $465 to the Liberals on February 28, 2010.

Jocelyn Renald, Vice President Management Committee, donated $300 to the Liberals in December 2008. 

It is unclear whether any of these individuals have a direct involvement in the current robocalls investigation, however the firm has been given a $214,700 contract to conduct its investigation. This is the largest robocalls contract I've come across to-date, so at least the company, if not its employees, would be neutral, right?

Wrong. In 1999, when businesses and unions were allowed to donate to political parties before the days of the Liberal's AdScam and the Conservative Party's Accountability Act to address that Liberal corruption, Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton donated $4406.48 to the Liberal Party. And another $1000 in 2000.

In 1998, Grant Thornton, the apparent head office of RCGT, donated a staggering (and odd) $12,657.18 to the Liberals.

They also audited the 2004 books for the Marijuana Party of Canada, although the party barely received $11,000 in donations (I guess the rest went up in smoke).

During the 37th general election, the company gave $450 for the re-election of Serge Cardin, a then-sitting Member of Parliament for the Bloc Quebecois and a currently-sitting Parti Quebecois Member of Provincial Parliament. They also gave $500 to support his opponent, then-Liberal candidate and now City Councillor Jean-Francois Rouleau. What better way to make friends with both the sitting Bloc Quebecois MP and his Liberal challenger than to just donate money to them both?

It is startling that Elections Canada did not properly vet the neutrality and worthiness of allowing yet another partisan investigator (after Andre Thouin) onto this investigation. These are not small amounts of money, and throwing thousands of dollars behind a leadership contestant or political party indicates strong, decisive support.

Canadians are well on their way to spending $1 million on this "robocalls" investigation. What has that investigation dug up or accomplished? So far, nothing.

How can Canadians have confidence in any of this investigation when the very investigators have a strong, clear, undeniable political bias?

If this investigation has uncovered anything, it needs to be laid bare immediately. Otherwise, this rank investigation needs to be swiftly thrown out.

Your Member of Parliament is a good first start, but you can also contact EC directly:

Contact Us

General Questions

Do you have questions about Canadian elections? Have you checked our FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) for Electors? If you did not find the answer in these FAQs, please contact Elections Canada.

Mailing Address, Telephone, TTY and Fax

Use our E-mail Form or contact us directly at info@elections.ca.

 

[a_majoor]

More on the EC culture of corruption. It makes you wonder about what else EC has been doing, or if we can even trust election results anymore. When supposedly non partisan organs of the government are clearly no longer acting in a non partisan manner, then public trust in the system will start to collapse:

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/02/elections-canada-contracting-guidelines.html

Elections Canada contracting guidelines broken in hiring of partisan robocalls investigatiors

Last week I revealed that many of the investigators hired by Elections Canada to investigate the robocalls case have made donations to the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois. These donations, anywhere from an individual donating $300 to an entire firm donating $12,660, demonstrate clear and decisive support for a political party - at the very time when neutrality and non-partisanship are essential to conducting a fair and balanced investigation.

And Elections Canada agrees.

Anyone conducting business or contracting with Elections Canada is subject to their Procurement and Contracting Guide (Version 1, September 1, 2011).

Included in that Guide is this section (emphasis added):

13.6 Political Partisanship
Due to its mandate, Elections Canada must conduct its activities in an impartial manner and must be seen to be politically neutral. In some cases, in order to achieve such political neutrality, it is necessary to restrict contractors who provide goods or services to Elections Canada from being engaged in politically partisan activities and from performing work for or on behalf of a political party, a candidate or a person, body, agency or institution with politically partisan purposes or objectives where the performance of such work raises a reasonable apprehension of political partisanship. In these cases, the solicitation document and the contract include an avoidance of political partisanship clause.

There you have it.  Elections Canada's own guidelines prohibit political partisanship where it is necessary "to achieve political neutrality."

I can't think of any circumstance where political neutrality is more essential than when Elections Canada is investigating another political party for supposed potential crimes which could carry significant fines and/or jail time.

Yet we have known Liberal and Bloc Quebecois donors being awarded a $214,700 contract - the largest contract I've come across to-date - to investigate the Conservative Party.  Does that sound "politically neutral" to you?

 

[a_majoor]

You just can't make this stuff up. The very people who are calling for heads about the Robocalls turn out to be the perps:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/company-fined-for-illegal-robocalls-worked-on-council-of-canadians-robocall-lawsuit-against-conservatives/

Company fined for illegal robocalls worked on Council of Canadians’ robocall lawsuit against Conservatives
July 26, 2013 — BC Blue


The company Strategic Communications was fined $10,000 along with NDP MP Paul Dewar (see here) by the CRTC for making illegal robocalls:

Strategic Communications Inc. was issued a notice of violation for a robocall campaign it carried out on behalf of the NDP between 11 January and 20 January 2012 in the electoral district of St-Maurice-Champlain, Québec.  The calls in question did not specify that they were being made on behalf of the NDP, nor did they include the call originator’s mailing address and contact telephone number. Strategic Communications Inc. cooperated with the CRTC’s investigation, paid a monetary penalty of $10,000 and committed to establish a comprehensive compliance program to prevent future such occurrences. (see here)

More than a little ironical since Strategic Communications’ CEO Bob Penner acted as the Leftie activist group, Council of Canadians expert witness during their attempt at overturning the results of the last election:

The robocall super-sleuths McMaher will be all over this one as well I’m sure.

It still makes me angry however; the Liberals were the ones fined for making illegal Robocalls in Guelph and a left wing communications company makes illegal Robocalls for the NDP, but who is always pointed at as the perps? Breaking the "narrative" and the power of the Legacy media to hold the truth hostage should be the defining issue for all free speachers. The Internet, Smartphones, consumer power and Samizdat are our weapons, so lets start using them.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Manitoba motormouth MP Pat Martin is learning that shooting from the lip and putting the mouth in motion before the brain is started has financial consequences according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-mp-seeks-publics-help-with-legal-bills-in-robo-calls-case/article4535075/

I have met Mr. Martin ... I washed my hands immediately afterwards; I found it very easy to dislike him; he comes across, especially in committees, as a bully and a blowhard. I sincerely hope he comes up empty and gets financially ruined because of his big mouth ~ it couldn't happen to a nicer more appropriate guy.

More, today, on NDP MP Pat Martin, and contributions to his "legal defence fund" to pay for the defamation suit (brought by RackNine) that he settled in Feb of this year, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Martin+loan+from+donations+from+labour+robocalls+defamation/8948493/story.html

NDP MP Pat Martin got loan from NDP and donations from labour to pay robocalls defamation lawsuit

BY GLEN MCGREGOR, OTTAWA CITIZEN

SEPTEMBER 23, 2013

OTTAWA — New Democrat MP Pat Martin accepted a personal loan from the NDP and numerous donations from labour unions to help pay down debt incurred in a defamation lawsuit over the robocalls case.

Documents filed with the federal ethics commissioner by the Manitoba MP earlier this month show he accepted contributions to a legal defence fund from the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and 14 other unions or locals.

The donations are being used the repay a loan Martin received from the New Democratic Party of Canada to settle the legal case.

Political contributions from unions have been illegal at the federal level since 2004, but Martin says these donations to his legal defence are considered “gifts” to him personally under ethics rules, even though he will never see the money.

Martin said he went to Revenue Canada, Elections Canada and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to make sure contributions to his legal defence would not break any rules.

The money is being used to pay down legal fees and the costs of settling the lawsuit filed last year by RackNine, the Edmonton-based voice-broadcasting company whose service was used in the 2011 election to send out misleading calls directing voters in Guelph, Ont., to the wrong polling location.

RackNine sued Martin for comments he made in 2012, shortly after details of an Elections Canada investigation into the robocalls case became public.

Martin and RackNine reached a settlement of the $5 million lawsuit in February. The terms were not disclosed. Martin says he has paid down about half of what was owed but still has a “massive amount” outstanding. Payments to service the loan cost him $2,700 a month, he said.

Earlier this year, Ontario Conservative MP Erin O’Toole complained that donations from unions could create a conflict of interest for Martin when dealing with legislation that affects them. Dawson looked into the complaint but later dismissed it.

Martin says it would be “ludicrous” to think the donations would influence his position on labour issues.

“If anybody thinks I could become more friendly to trade unions, then they don’t know me very well,” Martin said.

“I’m a socialist and trade unionist and former head of the carpenters’ union in Manitoba.”

Martin says he consulted with Dawson before he set up the legal defence fund and she said he had gone even further than he needed to, by setting up a trust fund to handle the contributions to his defence.

Dawson requires Martin to recuse himself from any matter he deals with as an MP that may affect one of his donors directly, but not on legislation that affects labour unions generally, such as the private members bill brought by a Conservative MP to require more financial disclosure from trade unions.

A list made public by Dawson’s office lists all donors of $500 or more, including one made personally by Paul Moist, president of CUPE and another from NDP MP Hélène Leblanc.

“They don’t want to see a politician be stymied and silenced by legal action when we were only acting on fair comment” on an issue in the public interest, Martin said.

Martin said many donors gave exactly $500 by PayPal but because a service charge was deducted, their contributions were less than the threshold and not made public.

Legal documents filed by Elections Canada investigators say that RackNine’s owner, Matt Meier, has cooperated with the investigation and provided electronic records to help them find “Pierre Poutine,” the pseudonym used by whoever sent the calls.

The agency has charged only one person in the case, former Conservative campaign worker Michael Sona. His case is scheduled for a pre-trial hearing Thursday.

Although RackNine has faced no legal sanctions for the Guelph robocalls, the company was fined $60,000 by the CRTC last year for political calls that violated telemarketing rules.

Source of donations received by the Pat Martin Legal Defence Fund:

• The Alberta and NWT Building Trades Council

• The Canada Labour Congress

• The Millwrights Union Local 2736

• The United Steelworkers

• The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

• The British Columbia Regional Council of Carpenters

• The Canadian Union of Public Employees

• The Canadian Machinist Political League

• The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Canada (Western Canadian Boilermakers)

• The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Local 739

• Susan Atherton

• The Atlantic Canada Regional Council of Carpenters and Millwrights and Allied Workers

• The Prairie Artic Regional Council of Canada

• The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

• The United Food and Commercial Workers ch. 19

• The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2085

• The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2038

• Mr. Jean-François Larose

• Ms. Hélène Leblanc

• The Canadian Union of Public Employees

• The CAW-Canada

• Mr. Paul Moist

• The Federal NDP Caucus Fund

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

No comment.

 

[PuckChaser]

At least he can admit he's in bed with big unions, something the rest of the NDP will deny until they're blue in the face.

If I was a member of CUPE, I'd be pretty pissed off my union dues were paying the settlement of some idiot MP who ran his mouth off without any facts.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Solidarity forever.  Bless you, brother.

 

[Rifleman62]

Even better this:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/24/matt-gurney-union-darling-pat-martin-misses-the-point-on-legal-fund-donations/

Union darling Pat Martin misses the point on legal fund donations

Matt Gurney-24/09/13

In 2012, NDP Pat Martin did something he no doubt wishes he could take back. It was during the height of the robocalls scandal, in which automatically dialled telephone calls played a recorded message that lied to voters in an Ontario riding about where their polling station was. The calls were pretty clearly a dirty trick played against the Liberals, who ended up winning, anyway. The calls originated from Racknine, an Edmonton-based company that has done work for the Tories in the past. Martin, full of outrage and indignation, went on the CBC and directly accused the company, and its owner, Matt Meier, of direct, willful involvement in the affair.

This was a serious mistake. First, because Meier, and his company, were only contracted to make the calls, and were not responsible for the content. Second, because Meier offered full co-operation with the investigation. And third, because Martin made these comments outside of the House of Commons, where he’d have been protected by privilege. Martin eventually issued a total surrender and complete apology, but it was too late. Meier sued, and knowing his goose was thoroughly cooked, Martin settled. The terms are unknown, but it’s believed the settlement cost Martin a very pretty penny, plus legal bills aplenty.

And that’s where things get interesting.

To pay this settlement, Martin took a loan from his party, the federal NDP. To repay this loan, he legal defence fund accepted a series of gifts from no less than 17 labour unions and local associations, including some of the big guns: the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Unions are not permitted to make political donations, but these aren’t donations. According to Martin, they’re “gifts.”

This has apparently been reviewed by Parliament’s ethics watchdogs and passed muster. Personal gifts to a sitting MP are apparently fine, just not political donations. Oh. Good to know.

But Martin isn’t content just saying it’s legal. He went further, saying that it’s “ludicrous” to think that he’d be influenced by these donations. “If anybody thinks I could become more friendly to trade unions, then they don’t know me very well,” Martin said. “I’m a socialist and trade unionist and former head of the carpenters’ union in Manitoba.”

And Martin thinks that this is somehow better?

Influence peddling isn’t just about walking up to someone with an open mind and offering them so much cash that they come to see it your way. Helping someone who already agrees with you to stay out of trouble buys as much influence as a suitcase of money before a key vote. And in terms of distorting our democracy, how is having politicians cozying up to big money ahead of time, should “gifts” one day be needed, any better than just selling your vote to the highest bidder on a case-by-case basis?

Yes, Martin’s pro-union credentials are long established. But that’s not the point. The point is that his long-established union credentials are now resulting in large gifts to him, personally, at a time when he desperately needed the money. Maybe it won’t influence his future votes. But are we comfortable with cash rewards for past ones?

Let’s put this another way. Let’s say that the Natural Resources Minister or the Environment Minister received large gifts from oil and mining companies — since, gosh, they’d always been such big supporters of the industry. Let’s say that the Finance Minister received a big cash gift from a bank or mortgage lender — not because of what the Minister will do later, but because all the hard work he’s already put in. I suspect that most Canadians, not to mention Pat Martin and the NDP, would be outraged. And rightfully so.

The same should apply here. What Martin has done seems to be legal. But it shouldn’t be. And not breaking any laws or ethics regulations doesn’t make it right.