Eye on Outremont Part 3

Last thread left off with debator's contention of :

He also completely ignored my observation that if the Liberals so wanted Cauchon, why are they running someone against him?

And why did Ignatieff say NO in the first place, after Coderre did,  I will now also ask.

Also, will look at Pundits' Guide to see if spending assertations are factual

Here it is;

http://punditsguide.ca/riding_e.php?riding=1025

                         $ raised locally*            $ from Party            $ spent              % of limit

 Mulcair              21,642.22                   48,536.26              69,951.58             88.0

Dhavernas         36,562.80                     8,675.39               46,699.81             59.0

*Includes campaign contributions from individuals, and from corporations/businesses, trade unions, governments, and other groups when they were permitted (i.e., prior to the 2003 legislation changes), along with all the funds transferred from the local riding association. This figure gives an indication of how well-organized and self-sufficient the local party riding association (or independent candidate) is.

Thanks bekyne we cross posted.

Because Corderre wanted to end any future leadership aspirations of Cauchon.

Yes, I understand that, but really I know want to know why if, as Debator claims, they want Cauchon so bad, why are they running a nominee against him, or allowing one at any rate?

The local riding association had called for an open nomination when Cauchon wasn't allowed to run. It would have looked bad to then just appoint Cauchon.

Oh... okay, that makes sense to me then, thanks! :)

I didn't figure democracy had started with the Liberals

Because there is more than one person who wants to run in Outremont obviously as it is a desirable riding, and because there are different factions within a party who each have their favourite candidates of choice.  Why are you asking an obvious question like that?  The main point is that the Liberals want a bigger and more successful name than they had with Dhavernas, whether it is Cauchon, or another big gun.

And as you can see from what someone posted above, Mulcair spent much more money in Outremont than Dhavernas.  I wouldn't have said so if it wasn't true.  I expect you to take my word for something when I say it, otherwise there is not much point in discussing things.

I've compared a lot of riding campaign expenses. And for reasons I can't figure, it is common for the Liberals to report little or no salary expenses for campaigns that obviously had considerable staffing.

Someone else is paying those salaries- and Elections Canada is unequivocal that salary expenses MUST be recorded for anyone who is paid anything by anybody while they work in a campaign. Its obviously not universally enforced. That said, whenever I have observed this in Liberal campaigns [and all but Carr's of the Green campaigns that spend at or near the limit], their reported expenses are low enough that if all staff expenses were reported as required, they would probably still be under the limit. In other words, if they get challenged, they'll be safe and just get a knuckle rap for not reporting the expenses.

I have only guesses why this is a common practice. It isn't done in the NDP. Whatever- its a common practice for the Liberals.

And sure enough, there are zero salary expenses reported for the Dhavernas Liberal campaign, and nothing like that is what really happened.

If you compare the top 3 big ticket expenses for the two campaigns [not including salaries], they are within several thousand dollars of each other.

thanks Ken - skirting the rules - and one wonders why the lib party of Canada has credibility problems - so when they "cry not fair", for example,  against the cons for the "in and out scandal", it is again the pot calling the kettle black.

Those in glass houses should never throw stones.

To be fair, or sense of proportion here: I think this is nothing like the Cons in and out scandal which is a blatant skirting of the spending limits that are the central pillar of what our elections financing regime is about....  limits which the Cons are happy to enforce on others when it suits them.

This practice by the Liberals [and Greens] of not reporting salary expenses does flaunt the rules. But like I said, they do not appear to be exceeding spending limits anyway [though not always the case with the Greens], so at the very least it is not a wholesale manouver to flaunt the spirit of the rules.

I brought it up here strictly for what it is: you can't make a comparison that just takes at face value the Liberals reporting of campaign expenses.

There may in fact be no difference at all between the actual spending of the Liberal and NDP 2008 Outremont campaigns, or that the Liberals spent more.

The zero and token reported salary spending in Liberal campaigns sticks out like a sore thumb. I suspect the same thing is done around some advertising expenses, but the amounts involved make it not easy to see.

Like I said, I don't know why the practice is common, and I'm pretty sure that it is not usually, if ever, done to get around spending limits.

The motive that makes sense is that turf wars and zealously guarding how the pie is carved up is rife in the LPC. If the LPC transfers $10,000 to a riding campaign, the riding gets that money plus the $6,000 consequent rebate from Elections Canada. If the LPC instead pays riding expenses directly and just includes that in central campaign reporting- it gets the rebate. They can't go doing that with all or most riding expenses, but it is easily done with staff salaries. And this may also be the reason the practice is common in the Green party. I've seen 3 cases in the Green party where the existence of that practice may have allowed the campaign to actually spend over the limit, and it may have also have happened in the LPC, but they report that way all the time even when it is clear there was never the possibility they were goibng to go over the limit.

At any rate, the same as it is easy for the LPC to not be challenged for directly paying campaign salaries instead of transferring funds, it would be equally easy to be paying directly some riding campaign advertising invoices rather than transferring the funds. [The big grey areas around advertising buys is why the Cons used that for their in and out spending scam.]

Thanks Ken, interesting indeed.

You can see what a large sum of money the NDP gave to the riding compared to how much the Liberals gave to it.

Compared to how much the Liberals reported giving to the riding campaign.

Do you really think that Outremont Liberal campaign had, as reported, no staff person who got a single dollar from any entity whatseover for the period of time they were working in the campaign?

 Yes Ken. The LPC ran a campaign to retake the riding without a staff person ....

Funny...the way things are twisted to appear, and then expounded upon as if they were true, by the Liberals, eh?

Good thing people like Ken are on the ball though. I know I certainly appreciate the greater insights I have been acheiving through his exposing of  numbers and actions, as well as from bekyne.

An excellent point Ken, many thanks for bringing it up and explaining it.

The Liberals tend to have far more paid staffers than the NDP, so I wouldn't be surprised to find that the amount of money actually spent was higher for Dhavernas.

I suppose Liberal staffers have lots of time on their hands, and can avail themselves pro bono. Don't underestimate the power of the many Montesouri matrons who, not only populate ridings such as Outremont and Westmount-Ville Marie, but also effectively contribute qualified time and effort to the party-- not unlike the full-time,  paid staffers of labour organizations who also have time to contribute to their preferred candidates.

The rules are much tighter than you think.

You have to be truly pro bono. Unions and lawyers offices can no longer send in staff. A week can probably easily be got away with, even a few people doing that. But its impossible to fill all the positions that way. Tricky even to do on.

And a lucky campaign can get one retired or independently wealthy person who has enough experience to fill a full time position. But thats a lucky break, and the Outremont Liberal campain declared zero staff expenses. You don't fill all the positions that way.

Like I said, this is common practice in the Liberal party. At least 90% of those people are being paid by someone. Paid by an organization is too risky because its a very big no-no. But paid by the Liberal Party and reported as part of central campaign expenses- thats routine, and understandable Elections Canada with all the things it has to police doesn't make an issue of it as long as it does not appear to be used to get around spending limits.

Herbert stated in the At Issue Panel a couple of weeks back, that the Outremount EDA could fit into a phone booth,  and given that reality it would be hard to see them coming up with a volunteer staffer that had the expertise to be full time and run the campaign.

Developments have occurred since.

Be that as it may- and I took Hebert's comment with a grain of salt anyway.

But last year they did not come up with all volunteers, as they reported for Outremont and many other ridings that had full tilt campaigns, including those of incumbents.

In fact, the more volunteers you have the more you need paid staff... or there's nothing for most of the volunteers to do.

Like I said, in a full tilt campaign if you are lucky you can get one sufficiently experienced staffer who does not have to be paid by anyone. But there is no such thing as a full tilt all volunteer campaign. Even in the Green Party that is a myth.

So,  how do they get away with it?

Ken told you

Elections Canada staff can't pry into everything. The reason the results exist is to keep people from exceeding spending limits; and to keep campaigns from accepting monetary or non-monetary contributions [like paying someone who staffs the campaign] from organizations not allowed to make contributions. Where it doesn't look like spending limits are being exceeded, it isn't a priority to check that everyone is reporting as required.

What sort of organizations are prohibited from making such contributions?  What sort of non-monetary contributions...other than staff?

I can't remember how extensive the prohibited list is. Corporations, trade unions, non-profits I think. Maybe someone will post who knows or wants to dig it out of the Act.

And a non-monetary contribution is anything of value. Leaflets, computers, whatever.

Other levels of the party in question are not prohibited [thats suppossed to be a transfer]. Which would be another reason that there is apparently no actual Elections Canada vigilance around the non-reporting of the Liberal Party of Canada paying the salaries of people who work in riding campaigns: they are suppossed to report it as a riding expense, but they are allowed to do it.

Would there be a notable effect on Quebec politics if the Bloc were to lose the Hochelaga by-election?

Would Gilles Duceppe decide the time has come to leave should a 'safe' seat go to another party?

I suspect that if the BQ lost Hochelaga it would be even more cataclysmic for them than it was to the Liberals to lose Outremont.

Here are electoral maps of Outremont from the 2006 general election and the 2008 general election [34].  Enjoy.

More Liberal nomination crap in Outremont. Le Devoir is reporting today that this doctor from Togo who is active in Medecins sans Frontieres who had been organiaing for months to contest the nomination in Outremont, finally quit the race after saying he had been pressured and strong-armed by Liberal hacks to quit so that Cauchon would not have to fight for the nomination. He isn't going quietly either! He is saying that there is no room in the Liberal party for visible minorities!!!

Maybe the NDP should roll out the red carpet for the good doctor!

Here's a link to the Le Devoir story to which Stockholm alludes.

Incidentally, I notice that various Liberal-friendly political blogs seem to keep deleting any comments about this latest Outremont fiasco. I wonder why?

I advise everyone to make this story VIRAL. Let's all post about in in every political blog there is and try to inflict maximum additional damage to the Liberal brand in Quebec.

Read this comment attached to the Le Devoir story:

"Moi qui croyais qu'en démocratie le peuple et non les «pleins» décident qui va les représenter. Moi qui croyais que même s'ils font tout pour que je les haïsse, les parti Libéral était démocratique. Mais non. Je me suis trompé. Le parti Libéral est antidémocratique autant qu'antiquébécois. Ce, en plus d'être le parti des fraudes par commandites."

If I wanted to win some money I'd be betting against some Liberals on this seat.

Stockholm's Swedish is probably better than his French.  Dr. Amouzou heads "Medecins D'Ailleurs" who are foreign-trained doctors who practice in Canada. (Medecins Sans Frontieres are Canadian doctors who practice overseas.)  IMO that's even worse for the Liberals.

hmmm thanks for the updates....