You don’t have to prove to EC “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that something is wrong – you have to provide at least ONE real indication that something is wrong – and you didn’t. The mere fact that the party put money into the SGI EDA account does not indicate that even a penny was put into the account of the nomination campaign (which is a separate entity), nor did you indicate that any money – at all! – had ever been spent on Ms. May’s nomination campaign. Unspent money outside the contestant’s account does not an unfair process make. EC, in their wisdom, knows when not to waste time on a spurious complaint.

I have in past made complaints to Elections Canada and provided actual indications of wrongdoing; they followed up, investigated, dealt with it. In this case you failed to provide ANY evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever for the simple reason that you could not – because there wasn’t any. Did the majority of the party (nationally and locally) support Elizabeth? Yup. Did they assume she’d win? Yup. Did they continue planning and acting on that assumption, while allowing you free reign to run against? Yup. Is that unethical or illegal? Nope. It’s just politics and prudence. Democratic elections are about who has more support, not about ensuring a fair coin toss. Heads or tails, SGI members didn’t want you to represent them. No amount of railing at EC or EM or GPC will ever change that, but maybe it will make you feel better.

(And if the coin tossed is a loonie, then that plus two votes will buy you a coffee. Even if the votes have already been destroyed. Drink up, Tuart!)

The fact that Elections Canada’s counsel didn’t recommend investigating further also doesn’t prove that the funds were being used appropriately, or that services weren’t offered equally (which they weren’t). Her letter read more like come from the Green’s Party’s lawyer than an impartial review by a government body.

Counsel’s recommendation only proves how useless Elections Canada actually is when it comes down to complaints. She used only the limited evidence that I could scrape together, which I pointed out would likely be inadequate as I had no access to the records of the EDA, as the basis of her review. I was expecting that Elections Canada would at least make its own enquiries, but it doesn’t seem to have even tried.

How Elections Canada seems to work is that unless a complainant can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that something untoward has taken place, it won’t even investigate. Sounds to me either evasion of responsibility or maybe just plain incompetence. Only in Canada you say? Pity.

(See the ad at the top of the right-hand column or just click here.)

OTTAWA — Elections Canada has officially rejected allegations by Stuart Hertzog that funds were being used inappropriately during the run-off for the Saanich Gulf Islands nomination.

“The Green Party of Canada is satisfied to have this unsubstantiated allegation put to rest,” said National Campaign Director Catherine Johannson. “Party members can rest assured that their donations are being used properly and in accordance with the Elections Act.”

During Hertzog’s campaign to be the candidate for Saanich Gulf Islands, he submitted a complaint to Elections Canada that party funds were being used to benefit Leader Elizabeth May, who has since secured the nomination.

Legal counsel for Elections Canada have now ruled that these claims are groundless and have closed the investigation.

“One of the Green Party’s core values is participatory democracy and we believe every citizen has the right to express their views. That said, we would never use party funds inappropriately and I am glad that this issue has been resolved,” said Saanich-Gulf Islands Green Party Campaign Manager John Fryer.