Pages

Saturday, April 28, 2007

RCMP Decide Stockwell Day's Nomination Payoff is Still OK

The RCMP have decided not to investigate further into criminal wrong doing around the $50,000.00 payment made to a former candidate so their boss, the HONOURABLE Stockwell Day, could run in a by-election in 2000 as the new Reform Party Leader.

This may be the right thing to do but will Canadians trust the process, the people involved and the decision not to proceed? The official reason seems to be there is no new evidence. Let’s face it this is their boss they have been investigating. It is not a position the RCMP can look good in, regardless of their decision. They should have had another law enforcement group do this revisit of the investigation, for the sake of Day, their own credibility and integrity and for the sake public’s trust and confidence in the RCMP… which is the real test in such matters.

One has to wonder why that never happened because the RCMP brass may have just squandering the last remaining bits of its credibility. The RCMP have not been the most credible of organizations as of last with the resignation of the former Commissioner over the Arar dealings, the allegations and conflicting testimony on allegation of pension funds misuse and nepotism by senior officials. And then we have their celebrated political interference in the last election when the made a public announcement about the Income Trust investigation. That was arguably the ultimate non-issue that showed no political wrongdoing months later but the damage was done and it helped tip the scales that finally put Harper in office.

We have this all in the context of the recent court orders for a new nomination process in Calgary West over the “Affair Anders.” – who is running for the nomination again . The first instance and appeal decision both concluded finding wrongdoing by the Keystone Kons in how they manipulated the Anders nomination process. The news reports are that the Kons are is still thinking of appealing their Alberta Court of Appeal loss. Does that mean Harpers Kons are seriously thinking of applying for eave to appeal to the Supreme Court on this?

Give it up already. The Supreme Court has serious business to attend to. That should not include nurturing the hubris of the Kons of Calgary West.

I bet the discussions over late night beers in the PMO are putting this all together. they must be concluding that as soon as they get their police representatives appointed along with “their guys” to the Judicial Review Committees, then the "appropriate" recommendations for judicial appointment will be forthcoming. They will then be able to ensure that they will have a free hand on these matters. Never again will they be embarrassed or bound by the rule of law or have to suffer or even tolerate an independent judiciary. Then they can stop the “meddling” around issues of fairness and transparency in their party nomination processes.

Democracy? We don't need no stinkin' democracy!

These are scary people.

11 comments:

  1. Again, the smear campaign by the LPC has not worked and Day has been vindicated. Now, I believe that the RCMP should focus on an investigation on Mark Holland for illegally obtaining documents. It is illegal to take items when you know that they were not intentionally discarded (here, there was a label stating that the box was to be delivered to the CPC). As well, what would the average hard-working Cdn do if they found documents with private information that didn't belong to them?

    Are you saying the RCMP is not properly doing its job? The LPC cannot have a criminal investigation by making falseless accusations not supported by evidence. If the RCMP always investigated baseless accusations, then Cdns would surely begin to distrust the process.

    Your liberal attacks on our police officers is not new. It is very consistent with the soft on crime approach (not passing laws prohibiting house arrest for serious crimes) as well as the weakness on the national security front (failing to extend the anti-terror provisions the police may have needed to protect our country). It is a shameful and scary that you continue to question the reputation of our officers when it is clear that the pension issue only dealt with a few bad apples at the top.

    ReplyDelete
  2. After viewing the incriminating documents...it sure looked like a pay off to me. I guess I am just not as smart as those RCMP braniacs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For this particular alleged offense, there must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of mens rea (guilty mind). It is not simply RCMP officers but also Crown lawyers who establish whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant bringing forward a criminal charge.

    If I were Day, I would thoroughly examine the comments made by Holland outside the House to determine whether a defamation lawsuit is warranted. At the very least, I would request a retraction of any statements implying criminal guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ken chapman4:28 pm

    Eric - not only must justice be done - it must be perceived to be done. Under these circumstances the public has a right to be skeptical.

    With more appropriate steps being taken to assure the public that this process was independent and thorough. One would have hoped for a disclosure of the evidence and the process used to reach the decision to not pursue the matter. What is the rationale behind the conclusion other than the RCMP already had the documents the LIbs found in the Kons materials that was left in the Opposition offices.

    One would reasonably be expecting the full investigation report to be released publicly. At least we would expect more than a newspaper report coming out on a weekend to inform the public.

    Now no one is even sure that any of the investigation and review process was properly and appropriately handled. Not saying it wasn't but where is the evidence to support that conclusion?

    This is not even fair to Minister Day nor the RCMP, including the rank and file. Sadly the way to avoid this was entirely within their power and one would think they would want to do it right to provide the public with assurances, even in only for their own good.

    Good government and governance has been diluted and faith in the system is diminished. That is sad at a number of levels.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Eric - not only must justice be done - it must be perceived to be done. Under these circumstances the public has a right to be skeptical."

    I believe in the RCMP's ability to investigate a complaint and hold less faith in LPC allegations of wrongdoing. It was not unexpected that there would not be enough evidence for a criminal charge with such a very high level of proof required.

    There is absolutely no right to public disclosure if a criminal charge is not warranted due to the lack of evidence for a baseless allegation. If someone accused me of a wrongdoing through a smear campaign with no substantive evidence, I would not want any of my personal information to go public. That type of disclosure would only add credibility to the wrongful accuser.

    It is Mark Holland who should be ashamed and embarrassed. Again, I hope Day strongly considers a defamation action.

    Liberals arguing about diminishing good government and goverance - wow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ken chapman10:34 pm

    Day has to prove he has suffered damages for a successful defamation action. Surely this is not an event that will diminish his reputation in the community.

    Will he sue in the name Doris Day or Stockwell Day? I rest my case.

    Fair comment is a difficult hurdle to overcome for all politicians, especially in the States. Canada is not too prudish in letting public figures. particularly politicians, face "a liberal dose" of criticism in public.

    The criminal test of beyond a reasonable doubt is a high level of proof to be sure. In the court of public opinion, the standard of proof is so low that a mere announcement of a criminal investigation is sufficient evidence of guilt.

    The presumption of innocence is a myth...unfortunately.

    The unfounded RCMP charges over the Libs alleged leak around Income Trusts was enough to help topple a government in 2006 - even though it was found to be a non-event later by the authorities. Vindication was too little too late - the damage had been done.

    If Day wants the issue to persist -sue Holland...it will be in the media and the blogosphere forever.

    Harper will not be amused.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous7:58 pm

    HArper made a similar payment to Ezra Levant to get him to step aside. The Con Party has lots of dough and they are prepared to buy seats with it. (Except in Quebec, the Canadian taxpayer has to shell out billions to help HArper).

    ReplyDelete
  8. ken chapman8:44 pm

    Ezra Levant did not go easily either as I recall. Does anyone have more facts on those events?

    Again is there a pattern here or what?

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is a new article on Hill Times that discusses whether or not Holland breached certain criminal code provisions. My guess is that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal investigation of Mark Holland.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ken chapman8:53 am

    Erikc - INteresting note on Mark Holland. Can you send us a link to the Hill Times piece? I subscribe and can look later today muself if necessary.

    Can you give us some quotes from the article that support your observations?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ken, the website thehilltimes.ca has articles that you don't need a subscription for. The title is "Grit Search of Tory Papers New Low on Hill: MP Scott Reid".

    There is not really a good analysis of the criminal code provisions that could apply.

    ReplyDelete