Mr. Penashue’s resignation and the advanced advertising that has accompanied his impending byelection bid had the opposition frothing at the mouth last week, with interim Liberal leader Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Ont.) deploring the tactics on the grounds that they undermine the rule of law.
Mr. Rae excoriated the government for beginning to advertise on Mr. Penashue’s behalf ahead of his March 14 resignation and for fielding Mr. Penashue as the candidate for the byelection that his resignation triggered in the riding of Labrador.
Mr. Penashue’s campaign accepted more than $45,000 in ineligible contributions from 28 donors in the 2011 federal election. The now former intergovernmental affairs minister received three bulk payments from the Conservative Party to repay the contributions to the Receiver General of Canada—$10,000 and $20,000 payments on Nov. 23, 2012, and another transfer of $14,350 on March 1, 2013.
He resigned two weeks after the final transfer to run in a byelection for his vacated seat, claiming that he was resigning in recognition of the mistakes of an “inexperienced volunteer,” but not before his party had already registered a website for the by-election and taken out a full page ad in The Labradorian newspaper.
Mr. Rae accused the Conservatives of orchestrating the repayment and resignation to undercut Elections Canada’s ability to continue investigating whether Mr. Penashue’s campaign deliberately violated contribution limits and prohibitions on corporate donations.
“The entire thing was orchestrated by the Prime Minister of Canada and orchestrated by the Conservative Party of Canada,” said Mr. Rae. “This is with respect to somebody who is currently under investigation by Elections Canada carrying out a political campaign financed by the Government of Canada and financed by the Conservative Party of Canada.”
It’s not the first time that the Conservative Party has had to pay the Receiver General for an Elections Act violation. In 2011, the party repaid more than $230,000 for exceeding campaign spending limits as part of the so-called ‘in and out’ scheme in the 2006 federal election. The party also paid a fine of $52,000 as a penalty for violating the Elections Act.
Former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley said that the party’s repayment of Mr. Penashue’s donations was well within existing elections rules. In fact, Mr. Penashue could not repay the loans if he wanted to because he himself would by exceeding contribution limits. Under the Elections Act, individuals are limited to contributing $1,100 to a campaign.
Mr. Kingsley said that it was also legal for Mr. Penashue to run in the upcoming by-election ahead of any final ruling by Elections Canada, but the former minister could return to the House of Commons and find himself under investigation for the illegal contributions his campaign received in the 2011 election.
If Mr. Penashue is found guilty he could be barred from running in an election for up to five years, but if he returns to the House of Commons and is prosecuted as a sitting MP, it will fall to House of Commons to address his case, said Mr. Kingsley.
“Only the House can effectively throw out a member,” said Mr. Kingsley, who served as Canada’s chief electoral officer from 1990 until 2007. “If there were to be a jail term associated with anything like this, then he obviously loses the seat because he’s unable to attend.”
Elections Canada does not comment on ongoing investigations. It falls to current Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand to refer the case to Elections Commissioner Yves Cote to investigate whether the violations in the Penashue campaign were deliberate. Mr. Cote can in turn ask Director of Public Prosecutions Brian Saunders to pursue criminal charges.
Meanwhile, time is “frittering away,” said Mr. Kingsley.
“It takes time to interview people. You have to cross-check what’s said. It’s like a police investigation,” he explained. “If the commissioner’s brought forth all the information that’s required to prosecute, then it shouldn’t take that long to make a determination on the part of the director of public prosecutions.”
Mr. Kingsley also noted that it wasn’t just Mr. Penashue’s campaign that was subject to legal scrutiny—the donors who made the ineligible contributions may also be investigated for violating the Elections Act.
Corporations and unions are ineligible to contribute to political campaigns, but the Penashue campaign received corporate donations, with two exceeding the $1,100 contribution limit: $5,500 from Pennecon Construction and more than $18,000 in contributions in kind from Provincial Airlines Ltd.
“That is unto itself illegal. The investigation will also have to look into those corporations and whether or not they broke the law by having made contributions,” Mr. Kingsley said.
Democracy Watch coordinator Tyler Sommers told The Hill Times that it was “dangerously undemocratic” if the Prime Minister calls a byelection for Labrador before the elections commissioner completes an investigation of the Penashue campaign.
Mr. Sommers said that it would be particularly troubling if the campaign and the party are off the hook for violating the act simply by repaying the ineligible contributions.
“What happens if [Mr. Harper] calls the election, Peter Penashue is elected again, and he’s found to have willfully taken illegal donations and is banned from running for five years? That’s going to put us in a very messy situation,” Mr. Sommers said. “Even if he’s not found guilty of that but the campaign is, what sort of message does that send to the public?”
Democracy Watch has long been critical of Elections Canada’s prosecution record. The organization has found more than 3000 public complaints of Elections Act violations in the last 15 years that lack public documentation.
But Mr. Kingsley defended his former organization, and said that the mere fact that Mr. Penashue resigned showed that violating the Elections Act does have consequences.
Mr. Kingsley, who frequently gives advice on coordinating elections in foreign countries, said that Canada still has a model electoral system.
“There are countries where you don’t even know who contributes what. Most of them you don’t. Most countries find ways to make believe they have controls,” Mr. Kingsley told The Hill Times. “These are things which so few other jurisdictions around the world try to emulate, it’s not even funny.”
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: CHRIS PLECASH
No comments:
Post a Comment