Ontario
Court of Justice David Harris on Thursday February 9th
2012 stated, “I find no reason to interfere in any way with the
decision.” The decision he
was referring to was originally made by the Niagara Compliance Audit
Committee that reviewed the illegal contributions made to candidates
during the 2010 Municipal Elections in St. Catharines. At the time
the audit committee decided it would serve no purpose to pursue
individual audits for four candidates for illegal contributions
received, citing it would cause a financial burden on the City as the
candidates returned the over-payments. The request for the Niagara
Compliance Audit Committee hearing was filed by a former regional
councillor Eleanor Lancaster. There were three articles published on
this issue in Mayorgate questioning illegal contributions, Candidate 'Double-Dipping' Campaign Funds, Double-Dipping Part Two and Selective Justice = Blind Justice.
Judge
Harris in his decision makes it clear that the Municipal Elections
Act is far more strict on the contributor than the candidate
receiving the contribution. He said that the contributor is in
“clear contravention of the Act”
if he makes more than the allowable maximum of $750.00. But the
candidate is deemed safe and not in contravention of the Act if the
candidate promptly returns the over-contributions.
So according to Judge Harris' interpretation of the Act the one with
the hand-out who takes the money he is safe as long as he returns it
when caught.
This
decision by Judge Harris prompted a response from Eleanor Lancaster
as reported by Doug Herod of The Standard, (Judge agrees candidates
didn't violate Elections Act, Feb. 10, 2012). “This just
says to any candidates, load up your coffers with whatever
corporations or companies want to make sure you get elected, and if
nobody catches you, well fine. And if you do get caught, you can pay
it back after the fact and you're off scot-free.” It
is easy to understand Lancaster's disappointment at the decision made
by Judge Harris in this instance.
Yet
the whole issue of illegal contributions and the decision by Eleanor
Lancaster to be selective as to who should face the public hearing by
the compliance committee was questioned here in Mayorgate. It was
Lancaster who reviewed the declarations by candidates and decided
that the one with the most illegal contributions she was going to
permit to pass, or as she referred in her comment after Judge Harris'
decision, “you're off scot-free.” Who
in this world gave Eleanor Lancaster the right to be judge and jury?
How did Eleanor Lancaster find the ego big enough to make the
decision for the law itself?
Eleanor
Lancaster said that Mayor Brian McMullan had a seat that was
virtually uncontested so she decided, yes she
decided,
not to challenge his illegal contributions. Eleanor Lancaster
decided that the one candidate with the most illegal contributions
and even one who had contributions without contact names listed was
o.k. to pass by. A candidate who was not even elected, Eleanor
Lancaster attacked. Somehow Eleanor Lancaster's self-appointed
judgeship of the law is very questionable. Nothing Eleanor Lancaster
said or did because of this holds much credibility. Mayor Brian
McMullan on his part never once acknowledged the illegal
contributions after the Lancaster absolution, and would only refer to
his campaign auditor. McMullan's arrogance was disturbing.
In the end Judge Harris decided
that the Municipal Elections Act allowed for candidates to simply
refund illegal contributions and walk away without consequence. He
saw that the contributor was at legal fault and the true demon.
After all Adam and Eve were only the weak victims without dignity who
fell into the charms and temptation of the devil. Guilty of only the
original sin, wanting to be politicians. After all it was ex-mayor
of St. Catharines and now regional councillor Tim Rigby who mused as
to the value of a politician's soul. In ordinary words Tim Rigby
said that $750.00 wasn't enough to buy a politician. I guess that's
why the multiples of $750.00?
Mayorgate brought forward the point
that the contributor was the real trail to follow in two articles,
'Double Dipping Part Two' and 'Selective Justice = Blind Justice'.
Questions were raised why would a contributor find the need to
provide more than the allowable maximum contribution to a candidate.
Why did Len Pennachetti need to give Mayor Brian McMullan $750.00
twice (you see Councillor Tim Rigby multiples!)? The same could be
asked of Tom Rankin and Angelo Nitsopolous. Was it simply Brian
McMullan's charm and personality that was dazzling at the time?
One
contributor stood out of the crowd as an over-giving Santa . Dan
Raseta even bragged in an interview with a reporter from The
Standard. Mr. Raseta claimed that it was his pride in the community
that was the driving motivation for his generosity and nothing else.
Being in business in this area had nothing to do with anything?
The Standard reporter, Matthew Van Dongen wrote this in his article.
“This
is our way of participating in the democratic process”
in the early part of 2010. “Raseta
sees no issue with donating through various companies.” Then
he quoted Dan Raseta as saying, “It's
not unfair, because those are the rules. We're very passionate about
our community, so this is our way of participating in the democratic
process. I would encourage anyone who feels the same way about their
community to do the same.”
Well
Mr. Dan Raseta it is not exactly how the rules set it out. By the
way by making that comment it would be fair to assume that Mr.
Raseta supposedly looked at the rules? Why else would he say that?
The
“rules”
as
set out by Judge Harris make it clear that Dan Raseta intentionally
breached the Municipal Elections Act. The penalty for such a breach
clear and simple and I quote from the Act now:
“Any
person who contravenes the Act is liable to a fine of up to
$25,000.00
and
or up to six months imprisonment if the offence was committed
knowingly.
The fine for corporations and trade unions is increased to
$50,000.00.
It
is hard for Dan Raseta to claim he did not know what he was doing
with his public brag, “It's
not unfair, because those are the rules.”
Yes
Judge Harris is correct in saying the Municipal Elections Act states
that a contributor “shall
not” give more than
the maximum of $750.00 and that it is a “clear
contravention of the Act.” But
Judge Harris left out this piece from the Act itself. Below where it
lists the penalties for Corporations/Trade Unions and Individual
Contributors there is a listing for Candidates. This I quote again
from the Act: “All
of the above individual penalties plus the forfeiture of office if
the offence was committed knowingly.” Possibly
Judge Harris was not comfortable with this as a fact of the Act? How
does the candidate who had multiple illegal contributions claim not
to know what was happening? After all that candidate is asking the
people to trust him to act on their behalf and be part of the
operating government! If he is that clueless on finances for himself
then we are in real trouble when he has to administer our combined
finances?
Nothing at all made any sense in
the whole issue of illegal campaign funds. True we have legislation,
law in fact, in the Municipal Elections Act. It is a set of
guidelines that are expected to be followed by all equally. Eleanor
Lancaster decided that one did not have to follow the law and in her
decision that he would be allowed to break the law without
consequence. Mind you it was Eleanor Lancaster who made that
decision, not the law itself. She chose to be judge and jury on this
issue. Then a judge makes a decision that candidates being only
victims are not responsible and should not face any consequence.
Canada has slipped down a dangerous
slope of hypocrisy that should be alarming to all. We have been able
to hold our heads high and point fingers at the American system of
elections. It has been seen as big dollars virtually buying public
office, where good ordinary people were out of the running from the
very start of a race. Dollars are only relative to each and every
individual situation, where $750.00 can't buy you a seat at a
convention, elsewhere it may be able to buy a soul. Our federal
politics is drowning in cries of corruption with 'robo calls'.
Claims of unfair influence and unfair play. On the provincial side
our very own elected representative in St. Catharines is pushing the
democracy card in this whirlwind of accusations. Yet as a minister
responsible to enforce legislation he ignored corruption even when
hard evidence was provided. On the municipal level what more can be
said. Illegal contributions, local police used to tamper with
evidence and a local newspaper nothing more than a public relation's
tool to lie about the truth.
So where do we stand? The quick
sand is of our doing. That sinking feeling is simply because as
Canadians we have allowed this to happen. Even when we know all the
facts we still only stand there and sink deeper. Isn't our Canada
worth more than this?
Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment