Why is the PM a no-show?
(August 26) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper came close, but he didn’t quite get here. He managed to get to Kitchener, where he flipped some burgers at a Conservative riding association event, but no further.
He didn’t drive down Highway 7 and into the only by-election being held west of the Quebec border. Gloria Kovach had to excuse herself from the Action Read all-candidate debate to go over to Kitchener to get her picture taken with her leader.
She was quoted in the local press as saying if Harper was to visit here during a by-election, her campaign "would be left to shoulder the costs associated with security.”
This is an odd thing for her to say for a couple of reasons. It sounded as if the local campaign was making an end run around election financing rules. If he comes here, the locals pay. If she goes there, the taxpayers pay.
As it turns out, she was wrong. I asked Elections Canada about it. I sent the query through their web site on Wednesday evening, and got a phone call back from a man in Ottawa on Thursday morning.
No, he said, the security and other costs associated with his visit would not be considered a campaign expense. Not for the Prime Minister nor any other party leader. He suggested that if I wanted to know why Harper didn’t come to Guelph, I “should direct the question to the Prime Minister’s Office.”
Kovach was obviously poorly informed on this important matter. So we are left to wonder why hers is the only party leader to avoid the Guelph by-election. I didn’t have a chance to ask the PMO directly, but a visiting MP from Alberta supplied another possible answer.
Brian Jean, a Conservative, said it was because the Prime Minister doesn’t want to influence the outcome of the by-election. This is more nonsense. It is the job of party leaders to influence elections. Stéphane Dion is doing it. So are Elizabeth May and Jack Layton. Are we to conclude that the Conservatives know his influence will only be negative?
Two of the issues in this by-election are accountability and the environment. These put three albatrosses around Gloria Kovach’s neck. The combined weight of Stephen Harper, John Baird and Brent Barr will stop her from leaving her city council desk.
I used to have a Facebook account, but gave it up.
Among other things, I came to view it as the Wal-Mart of the Internet. Big, greedy, domineering, arrogant and evil. All the same adjectives apply. The difference between them is that you can easily get away from Wal-Mart. There are other places to shop. It seems harder to get away from Facebook if you want to bring an issues based campaign to the Internet.
All four of the major local campaigns are trying to steer us towards a Facebook account. It’s hard to find Frank Valeriote’s Facebook thing. The other three have links from their websites, but you have to do a bit of Googling to find his.
For what it’s worth – and I think that’s not very much – each of their Facebook pages keeps track of the number of “supporters” or “friends” they have. As of last Friday morning, the numbers were: Kovach 171, Valeriote 275, Nagy 424, King 854. That’s likely more a measure of the demographic of their support than the depth.
As far as I can tell, it’s impossible to know how many of these are real people who live in Guelph. I just hope more than 1724 people vote on September 8.
posted by Alan Pickersgill | 5:34 PM
3 Comments:
That's a very strange answer from Elections Canada. It's spelled out pretty clearly in the act:
Expenses of senators and elected members
If a senator or a person who is (or was, during the last session) an elected member of the House of Commons or any provincial legislature campaigns on behalf of a candidate, the expenses related to that person's involvement in the campaign are election expenses of the candidate and must be authorized beforehand by the official agent.
[407(1)]
For example, if a minister or other member of Parliament travels from Ottawa to a candidate's electoral district to assist in the candidate's campaign, the costs of travelling to the electoral district and the costs of accommodation and transportation within the electoral district are election expenses of the candidate.
Alternatively, if travel to the candidate's electoral district includes official ministerial business above and beyond assisting in the candidate's campaign, a proportion of the cost of the trip must be allocated as an election expense of the candidate. This allocation should be made on the basis of the proportion of time spent working on each activity. Elections Canada will accept the basis of allocation used by the official agent, provided that it is reasonable in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, and provided that the auditor attests that the allocation is reasonable and in keeping with this handbook and the Canada Elections Act.
It is important to note that expenses of senators and elected members incurred while campaigning for a candidate must be paid by the official agent, because senators and elected members of Parliament are not eligible contributors to a candidate's campaign, other than in their capacity as individuals, and are subject to the contribution limits.
[404(1), 404.1(3)]
SMACKDOWN
STFU and sit down
You are right, it does seem strange. But that's what he said. After talking about Harper's expense, I asked specifically about Jack Layton coming to town and was told this is not a local campaign expense either. It is an expense of the federal party.
More to the point, though, the local Conservatives were saying the added cost of security would have broken their bank. This is nonsense. The RCMP provide security wherever the Prime Minister goes. They don't dole out invoices as they go.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home