Skip to content

MP’s column offers skewed version

Colin Mayes' latest remarks on the “Fair” Elections Act seeks to further muddy the waters of public record.

Colin Mayes likes to publish material without having it fact-checked, and his latest remarks on the “Fair” Elections Act seeks to further muddy the waters of public record.

While advertising purchased by unions in 2006 was judged to be a contribution by Elections Canada, the NDP immediately repaid the money when informed of the judgement.

Contrast this to the Conservatives and their In and Out Scandal (which, contrary to what Mr. Mayes writes, had nothing to do with the NDP). A total of $1.3 million was paid to local riding associations accounts and immediately returned to the Federal party and charged to national advertising in order to circumvent spending limits – in the election that first brought Stephen Harper to power.

Conservative candidates who refused to co-operate were punished.

The CPC then filed for a 60 per cent rebate by Elections Canada, and when they were refused, sued to force Elections Canada to pay. The initial court ruling in their favour (which they claimed as a victory) was overturned on appeal (which they refuse to this day to accept) and the Supreme court refused to hear a further appeal.

Whether Mayes likes it or not, this is the way our judicial system works: you get to appeal a judgement as far as you can, but if the Supreme Court refuses to hear it, the judgement stands.

In this case, the Conservatives are guilty, whether they agree with the court or not. Charges against the party’s money men were only dropped after the party pled guilty and paid the fine.

For Mayes to now say that it was in fact local advertising, contrary to the court’s ruling, only shows how far his contempt for anything he and his party don’t like carries him. Prisons are filled with innocent men and women: just ask them.

As for the Fair Elections Act itself, it may provide clarity of a sort, but it has nothing to do with focusing on honest people: it seeks yet again to tilt the electoral playing field in favour of the Conservatives, and it does so in ways condemned in 1996 by none other than Stephen Harper in Hansard - the official record of what was said in Parliament.

Now that Mayes has announced that he will not be a candidate in the next election, can we have an end to these pieces of fiction?

 

Richard Smiley