Former Liberal MP Blair Wilson cleared of any ’serious financial wrongdoing’
Allison Cross, Vancouver Sun
Published: Sunday, July 20, 2008

An eight-month review by Elections Canada has cleared Blair Wilson of any serious financial wrongdoing, the MP announced Sunday.

The former Liberal MP for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast was accused eight months ago of not properly recording financial election expenses.

However, Wilson admitted he failed to comply with section 83 of the Canada Elections Act, which is outlined in a compliance agreement with Elections Canada.

“I acknowledged to Elections Canada that I did not appoint an official agent and auditor for the campaign before accepting a contribution or incurring a campaign expense,” Wilson said in a press release. “This was something I should have done, but it was crucial to get the campaign up and running as quickly as possible and I jumped the gun.”

Wilson made two other mistakes in his campaign, he said.

“I accepted 144 printed umbrellas valued at approximately $711, which were not recorded as a contribution due to miscommunication when a new official agent was appointed to the campaign team,” he said.

Wilson said he also paid approximately $9,000 for the printing of brochures, business cards and Christmas cards, which were not charged to campaign expenses.

Wilson also announced his father-in-law, Bill Lougheed, had reduced a substantial lawsuit against him and his wife Kelly.

The amount has been reduced for $2.5 million, to about $11,000, he said.

One of his main priorities is to re-join the Liberal party, Wilson said, and run again in his riding.

I keep hearing people say it “ensures” May’s participation, but why is that? Where are the rules for being included in the debates defined? I thought it was up to the networks.

Unfortunately, I doubt it would change the decision that the “media consortium” had already made regarding Ms. May’s chances of participating in the leader’s debate. They’ll probably move the goalposts and say that the Greens had to actually elect candidates as MPs for them to be qualified to be in their precious leaders’ debate.

Reminds me of the Clinton campaign moving the goalposts as Obama was getting closer to the nomination.

My understanding is that networks organizing a debate are subject to some regulatory oversight just as they are in other election coverage e.g. they can’t openly favour one political party over another, have to provide some free time for parties that qualify under certain rules etc. In 1993 amd 1997 they agreed to allow Preston Manning to read a prepared statement and otherwise sit out the debate. His party had,after losing badly in 1988, managed to elect one MP, Deb Gray, in a by-election ,not a floor-crossing. The Bloc alos had a limited role, having 8 MPs, most from floor crossing but one, Gilles Duceppe from a by-election. I seem to remember Socred and Creditistes having a limited role in some debates and being excluded from others. despite having elected a number of MPs and forming provincial governments in the past.
The best solution for the Greens, given their alliance, would be to get some of the Liberals time. Say one minute of Dion’s opening and one minute of Dions closing G:>

Preston read a statement in the FRENCH debate because he couldn’t speak the language. He was able to speak just as much as the others in the english debates.

Chris — it is up to the media consortium. However, they have previously stated that participation required having an MP. Ergo, by their own criteria, she should be included.

The Greens are one of the 5 parties that receive public funding, one of 5 parties that run a full slate of candidates, and now one of 5 parties that have an MP. Seems like they’ve met all the criteria previously set forth by the consortium. On what basis should they be excluded?

The fact is, pure political self-interest motivates opposition to the Greens’ inclusion. Any other rationale is bullshit.

The Greens are a hard party to characterize because they don’t adhere to ideological norms (conservatism, liberalism, socialism). For the other parties, ideological consistency drives their policies.

The Greens tend to promote policies from across the spectrum, so the Greens are able to draw votes away from all parties. I guess that’s why the Greens like to say they “transcend traditional left/right definitions” (although this is not a particularly eloquent way of saying it, IMO). So when regulation works, they promote it. Where the market can be part of the solution, they promote it. The Conservatives use the former to label the Greens as left-wing so they don’t lose former PC support to the Greens. The NDP uses the latter to label the Greens as right-wing so they don’t lose support to the Greens. This is to be expected, as all parties are self-interested.

So you can see why the other parties (but particularly the NDP and Conservatives) do not want the Greens included in the debates. If you hear people arguing against their inclusion, you can bet it is out of self-interest for their preferred party (like PJC, who supports the NDP).

With respect, when I answered the question asked and said that it is not just up to the TV networks who get includes in a leaders debate please do not call it bullshit.

I was referring to such things as the law and public policy, the Broadcasting Act, Elections Act etc. See below for example the CRTC policy explanation following the Greens losing the legal challenge following the 1988 leaders debate.

———————————————–
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission – Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes

Public Notice

Ottawa, 15 March 1995

Public Notice CRTC 1995-44

Election-period broadcasting: Debates

On 2 September 1988, after receiving comments from the public, the Commission issued Public Notice CRTC 1988-142 entitled “A Policy with Respect to Election Campaign Broadcasting”. The Public Notice set out the Commission’s position regarding various aspects of election period broadcasting.

In that Public Notice, under the section entitled “Equity In Public Affairs Programming”, the Commission stated:

Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act must also be applied when presenting public affairs, such as party or candidate profiles, features on certain issues or panel discussions.

In the case of so-called “debates”, it may be impractical to include all rival parties or candidates in one program. However, if this type of broadcast takes place, all parties and candidates should be accommodated, even if doing so requires that more than one program be broadcast.

This was subsequently reaffirmed by the Commission in Circulars issued with respect to specific election periods.

Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act requires that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system “be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes, … provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern…”.

The broadcasting regulations require that, during an election period, licensees allocate time for programming of a partisan political character on an equitable basis to poli-tical parties and rival candidates.

Following the 1988 federal election, a prosecution was instituted by the Green Party against CBC, CTV and Global, claiming that these broadcasters had breached the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987, because they had not included the Green Party in a leaders’ debate during a federal general election and had failed to provide the Party with some accommodating time. In R.v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al., [1993]51 C.P.R.(3d), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that debates were not of a partisan political character. The Court believed that while the participants in a debate may very well be partisan, the program itself, because it presented more than one view, was not. The Court therefore ruled that debates were not covered by the relevant section of the regulations. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to grant leave to appeal.

In view of this judgment, the Commission will no longer require that so-called “debates” programs feature all rival parties or candidates in one or more programs. The Commission considers that licensees will have satisfied the balance requirement of the Broadcasting Act if reasonable steps are taken to ensure that their audiences are informed of the main issues and of the positions of all candidates and registered parties on those issues through their public affairs programs generally. The Commission still believes that news coverage should generally be left to the editorial judgment of the broadcast licensee.

With respect to free time, given free of charge by the licensee to the party or candidate and largely under the editorial control of the party or candidate, the Commission will continue to require that if free time is given, all rival parties and candidates must be offered such time on an equitable basis. Similarly, if paid advertising time is sold to any party or candidate, advertising time must be made available on an equitable basis to rival parties and candidates. The Commission notes that the Canada Elections Act sets out a formula for the allocation of paid and free time to registered political parties and considers that the equitable requirement of the regulations would be satisfied by compliance with the requirements of that statute during a federal election or referendum.

For related documents see: The Broadcasting Act; the radio, television and specialty services regulations, and Public Notice CRTC 1988-142.

In addition, see: The Canada Elections Act and the provincial elections acts.

Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

PJC – I said “pure political self-interest motivates opposition to the Greens’ inclusion. Any other rationale is bullshit.” I did not say your claim that it is “not just up to the TV networks who get includes (sic) in a leaders (sic) debate” is bullshit. Note the difference.

I have no doubt you will take offense to my characterization but indeed your objection to the Greens inclusion is partisan bullshit, in this case substantially reflecting NDP talking points (which is made clear by posting an unflattering article of the Green MP in question in its entirety, then claiming that because of the “alliance” between the Liberals and Greens they best choice would be to give the Greens a few minutes out of the Liberals time. As I understand it, the full extent of the LPC and GPC “agreement” consists of invoking a gentleman’s tradition of not running against party leaders, i.e. the agreement is limited to not running against one another in Dion’s and May’s respective ridings.)

But beyond your objection to the Greens inclusion in the debates, I don’t think you are correct when you say that it is “not just up to the TV networks”. The CRTC public notice explicitly states: “The Commission still believes that news coverage should generally be left to the editorial judgment of the broadcast licensee.” Indeed, it is up to the media consortium.

First, think May should be included. The more attention that will be brought to environmental problems in Canada, the better.

However, the Green Party sending out press releases saying May is now ensured a spot in the debates is also political posturing, no different then the other parties. If there are no clear rules, and no clear presidents, I don’t think anything is assured here.

Note, last election the Green’s used a different set of criteria to “demand” to be included in the debate.

This would be a lot easier to determine if there were clear criteria, but I can’t find any.

The fact that there are so many people pushing for the Greens to be in the debates and a great number of people also pushing for them to be excluded shows that what the Greens have to say matters to Canadians. Their level of significance in Canadian politics is enough for them to have the opportunity to speak for themselves in the televised debates.

But let’s not kid ourselves that the Greens are some kind of post-ideological party. We’ve seen plenty of political movements claim that they represent a “Third Way” of doing politics only to assume a position in the dominant neoliberal paradigm. Since the days of Jim Harris, the dominant forces within the Green Party have assumed quite a solid eco-capitalist ideology. It’s not a “Third [post-ideological] Way,” but another way — a “green” way — of doing neoliberalism. The Greens are triangulating their policies in order to occupy a part of the centre* and claim to transcend ideology (*by global standards, the “centre” of the West is quite right of centre, again ensuring dominant systems continue to dominate). It’s the same tactic Blair and Clinton used; Obama also seems to be finding it more useful as he succumbs to the structural pressures that exist in any liberal democracy. As the Green Party continues to triangulate and offer this “different” and “post-ideological” yet familiar Third Way, their place in the mainstream is less of a threat and they become more welcomed by traditional parties like the Liberals.

In the not-so-distant past, many people (I can recall Peter Mansbridge among them) found it hard to distinguish the dominant forces of eco-socialism within the Green Party from the NDP. Back then, many would suggest the Greens should just vote for or merge with the NDP. But that time has passed, and there has been an obvious ideological shift in the party to the right, closer to the political space occupied by the Liberals. That’s why it’s hard for Greens to escape common suggestions that they should just vote Liberal, or let Dion speak for May, or vice versa. The Greens offer less of an alternative than they did before and are more intent on reforming and “greening” current dominant systems. This gives them more mainstream appeal, and will get them into the televised debates, but it might also be their downfall. As their ideas are absorbed by all the major political parties who all claim to be “green” these days, the Green Party will either remain on the sidelines or merge with one of the major parties (unless electoral reform is adopted). Today, a merger with the Liberals would make the most sense, but if power changes hands again between the many different factions within the Green Party, this possibility can change or be precluded altogether.

I’ve advocated the Green Party’s inclusion in the leader’s debates for years – and I don’t even support the party. The fact is, the Greens have attracted a half million votes in recent elections. If they speak on behalf of that many people, darn right they should be included.

Assuming support for the Green Party increases over time, from which party do they draw the most voters from?

Does a stronger Green Party also reduce the vote % needed for another party to achieve majority status (40% is the usual metric)?

Reform and the BQ each managed to elect one MP each (Deb Gray and Gilles Duceppe respectively)after 1988 and before 1993. Preston Manning participated fully in the English language debate in 1993 as did Lucian Bouchard. Manning had limited ability to converse in French at the time so he settled on reading a statement in the 1993 French language debate. The requirement is clear: Elect an MP.

Unfortunatey, do to our archaic electoral system, May’s presence in the national debate would further distort the people’s desired outcome of the pending federal election. It is very simple. This country’s political landscape is diverse and ‘Single Member Plurality’ does not do us justice as Canadians. The political “right/centre-right” is solidified while the political “left/centre-left” is split three and four major ways in this country.

Undoubtedly, May’s presence in the national debate would draw an unprecedented number of voters toward the Green party thus splitting the left to an even greater degree.

The dilemma before us rests on one decision: Attempt to pursue true democracy in an environment which does not allow it to be expressed or play wisely with the bitter hand we have and exclude her from the debate in order to obtain the best desired outcome considering the circumstances.

Simon — that the Liberals have just adopted the Greens’ core policy on the economy/environment (the Green tax shift) certainly makes the Greens less distinctive than before. It’s quite an incredible turn of events for them and, in some ways, remarkable that a small party with no seats has forced the “natural governing party” to adopt its core message. Given that the economic/environmental question will be the ballot issue, it is clear to me that the Greens need to distinguish themselves from the Liberals on this issue.

That being said, a single policy does not a party make (and, contrary to popular opinion, the Greens do have policies beyond environmental issues). I see some pretty fundamental differences between the Greens and Liberals on many issues.

The Liberals have traditionally believed in a big strong central government with strong top-down policies. The Greens, by contrast, believe in decentralization and bottom-up change. That’s a pretty fundamental difference.

For example, the Greens believe that a sustainable economy is one that is driven by small businesses and the self-sufficiency of local communities. This differs from Liberals and Conservatives, who favour policies geared towards big businesses and globalization (the Libs typically favour subsidies, while the Cons typically favour tax cuts). The NDP, like the Liberals, has traditionally believed in a strong central government with top-down policies, but ones geared towards more socialist principles. They have typically been on the flip side of big business — representing big labour (although the NDP’s anti-globalization angle also overlaps with the Greens). So the Greens don’t quite fit comfortably with any of the other 3 parties on economic issues.

I think the Greens say they transcend the traditional left/right political divide because they are, at heart, pragmatists, and not beholden to ideological consistency. Liberals are grounded in liberalism. Conservatives are grounded in conservativism. The NDP is grounded in socialism. The Libertarians are grounded in libertarianism, and so on. Each of these are ideologies that have well-established social and economies principles; adherence to the core ideology is at the heart of traditional parties (which is why many NDPers are upset that their party seems less and less consistent with core socialist ideals). The Greens didn’t arise out of a political ideology but rather a concern for the environment. Because they aren’t grounded in an established political ideology (liberalism, conservatism, socialism, libertarianism, etc), they are hard to place on a traditional left/right spectrum.

The Greens sometimes promote policies that some of the left (particularly NDPers) see as “right-wing”, as you invoke in your classic critique of “neoliberalism” (which is really just a critique of capitalism in general; this is understandable if your ideological allegiance is to socialism). Unlike the NDP, the Greens goal isn’t to change the economic system towards from market- to state-controlled, but rather make it work better (more sustainable, more just, etc). On the other hand, those on the right think that Greens policies are “left-wing” because they are liberal on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

I suppose that’s why they draw votes away from the traditional ideological parties on the left, right, and centre. Which also gives us some clue why the other parties don’t want to see the Greens in the debates.

The Green Party, and other “small” or “fringe parties have been trying for about 20 years to get into the “big” or ‘established” parties leadership debates. For twenty years the media the Ontario Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada, CRTC, CBC ombudsman and a whole bunch of people have found the argument to include the Greens, the Communists and other parties in the “big” parties debates unpersuasive. They have had to settle for the “small parties” debates and that, or a reduced role in the big parties debate, is probably the most likely and fairest outcome I can see.
—————————————————-
” In 1993, the leaders of seven minor parties participated in a secondary debate at Ottawa’s National Arts Centre that was televised by CBC. It was a bizarre bit of political theatre, featuring the Green Party trying to talk about the environment, the Christian Heritage Party about biblical ethics and the Natural Law Party about the nation-healing powers of yogic flying. The experiment was not repeated in the 1997 campaign.

In the last election, those three parties, along with the Marxist-Leninist Party and the nationalist Canadian Action Party, captured a combined 1.1 per cent of the vote. The Green Party had the largest share of the bunch, at 0.4 per cent.”
————————————-

The Green Party,the Communist Party and other parties have been running candidates for over 20 years and have failed to elect a single MP or MLA during that time , A reasonable projection is that neither the Greens nor the Communist Party or any other of these “small” parties will elect any MPs in the next federal election. Why give one or all of these parties the Communists, Green, Marijuana, whatever,the opportunity to participate in the “big” parties” debates.

As discussed in the deliberations on past leaders debate, the argument om percentage of votes is more for a PR system than a “first past the post” system. Should a party that got .4 percent of the vote in one election, as the Greens did, that would entitle it to one seat in a pure PR system, get to be in the debate? What about a 1% threshold that would entitle a party to 3 seats in a pure PR system or a 5% threshold
that would entitle it to 15 seats. An interesting argument considered in the deliberations but no resolution, no threshlod set.

Lastly we need to reject the argument that to be included in the “big” parties debate a party needs to run candidates in all the seats and we need to reject the argument that the Greens are running candiates in all the seats. Obviously Bloc, Reform and other parties took part in the “big parties” debate without running candidates everywhere. And much as they don’t like to talk about it in this context, but will use it in other contexts, the Greens and Liberals are not running candidates in all ridings because they have a deal
————————————–
Under the terms of the non-compete agreement, May has agreed not to run a candidate against Dion and will essentially endorse him as prime minister.

“This is not a large-scale merger of parties. This is an extraordinary expression of putting principle ahead of politics as usual,” May said.

During the news conference May touted Dion as the answer to Canada’s climate change struggles, saying she has worked closely with him and has become convinced he is the best choice to lead Canada.
————————————————-
This deal means not only can the Greens not argue they are running candidates in all ridings, but also clearly puts May and the Greens in an alliance with the Liberals. If May does get into Parliament with all the benefits that would follow, she wuld largely have Dion and the Liberals to thank and, as the leader of a party without the 12 seats required to have official party status in the House, will most likely depend on the Dion and the Liberals to be allowed to ask questions in the House, sit on committees and do other Parliamentary business. She may not officially join the Liberal caucus but presumably would be working closely with it and Dion. Her life and political aspirations would be a lot easier if Dion is Prime Minister. in the likely event of a minority government, we cn expe May and any Gren elected to Parliament, would be supporting Dion as PM. Does anyone think she would spend much time in the debate attacking Dion and the Liberals instead of propping them up? Her fuure depends on working with Dion and the Liberals.

If there can’t be a “small party” debate ( and I gather May and the Greens aren’t arguing for the Communists or Marijuana party or any other “small party” to be allowed to debate with the Greens.then yes, I seriously think it would be interesting to allow May a small part of the debate by Dion offering some of his time. How xould the media and others refuse? Could be a brilliant idea.

PJC — as a good NDP soldier, you are doing a fine job of repeating NDP talk points but unfortunately for those of us who value democracy and fairness ahead of partisan politics, your argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

First, it’s incredibly weak to use evidence from 1993 (when the Greens were indeed a “fringe” party) to support the case why the Greens should not be included in the debates 15 years later in 2008 (when the Greens are a significant player in national politics). Your argument rests on the incorrect premise that the Greens in 2008 are just as fringe as the Marijuana Party, Communists, etc (I’m sure you know that the Greens had 24 times more votes than the next leading party in 2006 — and they are currently polling at twice their 2006 level), and that there is no difference between the Greens of 1993 and 2008 (the party had grown twelve-hold during that span).

Secondly, it is not a reasonable premise to say the Greens cannot win a seat. They may or they may not. The evidence shows that when the Greens spend as much as the other parties, they are competitive. The difference is that the Greens don’t have nearly the same financial resources as the other 3 parties. Let’s put some numbers on this — in the 2006 election in Ontario, here is what each party spent on local campaigns:

As you can see, there is a strong correlation between money and results. The Greens got the best bang for their buck; the Greens have done well with very limited resources. This is made even more clear when you consider that they have only spent significant dollars in a riding just once — in the London North Centre by-election, when they finished 2nd with 26%. How well would the Greens have done in Ontario in 2006 if they had the $2.8 million the NDP had? We can only speculate, but if they had 7 times more money (what the NDP had), is it not reasonable to think they would do better? Possibly even be competitive with the NDP, perhaps?

By denying Green participation in the debates, you are really saying that only those parties with deep pockets already can play the game. You reduce democracy to purely a game of who has the most money. I, for one, strongly object to this view, and frankly, I’m surprised an NDP supporter would endorse this view. The debates are one of the ways we level the playing field. I would not support the Greens inclusion in 1993, but I would today. At issue is whether the Greens today are a player in national politics. You would have to have been in hibernation to think otherwise.

The public financing system does have a threshold to receive public dollars. Only the Libs, Cons, NDP, Bloc and, yes, Greens exceed the threshold. Why should we fund the Greens but not allow them to participate in the debates?

When the Liberals in Québec agreed not to run a candidate against incoming Parti Québecois party leader, did that signal an alliance between the two parties? Of course not — any more than the agreement by Dion and May to not run against one another in their respective ridings does.

The Greens offer a different perspective than the Liberals – have you compared their policies across the board? Your idea to “allow May a small part of the debate by Dion offering some of his time” is elitist and patronizing, and again rests on the false premise that the Liberals and Greens are the same (a classic NDP talking point designed to thwart the loss of NDP support to the Greens). Should’ve Québec not allowed the Liberals a seat in the debate because they didn’t run a candidate against the PQ leader?

Personally, I think that the Greens have demonstrated they are a player in national politics and as such they should be included in the debates (I come to this judgment not by a single criteria but by a host of measures: they exceed the threshold for receiving public financing, they’re competitive when they can spend to the limit, they run a full slate of candidates, they now have an MP, they have consistently polled around 10%, 1 in 12 Ontarians voted Green provincially, their top issue – the environment – is the top concern of Canadians, and so on).

If you took off your partisan glasses and look at it objectively, you might understand why the vast majority of Canadians (4 in 5) support the Greens inclusion in the debates. The remaining 20% are hopelessly partisan, but I do thank you for demonstrating the mentality of this minority viewpoint.

I don’t believe in most of the policies of the Green Party. That being said, I am outraged that the main parties have threatened to boycott the televised leaders’ debates if Elizabeth May were included on the podium. Regardless of what people may think of the Green party or May herself, allowing the mainstream parties to dictate who can and cannot appear in the debates topples our democracy. She’s got the support numbers, and now an MP, to move the Green party out of the “fringe” status that plagued it before this election campaign. What I cannot figure out is, why is Gilles Duceppe, with his narrow Quebec interest, allowed into the “national” debates, yet Elizabeth May and the Green party, with candidates across the country, is not. Jack Layton and Stephen Harper must truly fear this woman and her party. Give us our democracy back. Let the woman speak. People can make up their own minds (and I suspect reject the Greens as a serious vote), but let the people decide. Shame on the TV networks for bowing to the big party leaders and their threats. For what? Ratings?
Do they honestly believe that Harper and Layton would not show up if May were allowed in? I think they’d have a change of heart once they realized that May, Dion and Duceppe would be the only ones getting their points across by debating each other.