The Elections Act is law. It creates offences. If the CPC acted in a manner that falls within one of those offences, they have commited an offence. It is not an “accounting regulation”. It is an offence. If they are found guilty, they will be punished.

If you need some help understanding that concept, I suggest you read the affidavit for the SW, where EC sets out quite clearly what offences they believe the CPC may have commited, and the evidence they have to support that.

Perhaps you would like to link to my comment where I suggest EC can enact laws. Of course they cannot do that - only Parliament can do that. You do not assist your argument by making things up.

You are wrong in your assertion EC cannot enforce the law. You need to read the EA. Just where do you think they get their authority to obtain a search warrant? Why do you think they can get a search warrant, and investigate and ultimately charge a party with an offence under the Act if they do not have the power to enforce the law?

While I understand your desperate need to equate the breach of the Elections Act with a speeding ticket, it is simply not true. A speeding ticket nets you a fine of a few hundred dollars. An offence under the EA can result in fines in the thousands of dollars, and possible deregistration of the CPC.

More importantly, there is a difference between a ticket, which is what is referred to as a “strict liability” offence (which does not require the prosecution to prove intent to commit the offence), and an offence under the EA, which does requires proof of intent. When the Crown’s burden is more onerous, that means the offence is more serious.

This leads us back to my previous comment in response to OS’s suggestion that it does not matter if the CPC committed an offence, preferring to blame the “crazy” election law instead of the CPC for knowingly breaching the legislation.

(And yes, I know no charges have been laid so I am not accusing the CPC of being guilty. I am simply responding to OS’s suggestion that it does not matter if they are).

You also fail in your attempt to minimize the seriousness of the refund claims. You see, if EC is correct that the refunds claimed were actually based on the expenses incurred by the national party, in violation of the EA, it means the refund claim is fraudulent. Some people equate fraud with theft - for good reason.

Once again you confuse an accounting regulation with a law.

EC cannot enact or enforce laws. The law courts will decide IF there was a violation of the regulations at which time a small fine will be paid. Kinda like a speeding ticket.

To conflate this with stealing tax dollars through what you consider to be unearned refunds is to confuse your tax return with raiding your neighbours cookie jar.

The courts will decide if the CPC interpreted the regulations properly, not you and certainly not EC.

Get serious. It does not matter if they broke the law because it was their own money??? You are aware that the law is in place to ensure a level playing field during elections. It does not matter if you think it is “crazy” - it is still the law, and the CPC are bound by it.

Not to mention the fact they are claiming 700 thousand TAX PAYER dollars as refunds, by lying…some might say that is theft - so there goes your “it is their own money” theory.

Every time the Liberals promise to delay the election, they lose credibility. Unfortately as Dion’s leadership protects the Conservatives, he destroyes the Liberal party. And because the Bloc or NDP are unlikely to form a government, the Consevatives will win a minority government again 2009. And the world will ask us why Canadian’s have become so corrupt. Much like the world ask today why the Americans are so bad after relecting Bush in 2004.

If Dion cares about the Liberal party, if he cares about Canada, he would stop supporting the Conservatives. And when he stood up he would discover people will stand by him to fight united and strong.

Remember Thomas Jefferson: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Democracy isn’t automatic. It has been to established every day.