NDP ethics critic wants RCMP probe for Del Mastro

- July 6th, 2012

NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus wants the RCMP to look into election allegations surrounding Dean Del Mastro.

Angus made the request to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson in a letter sent Friday.

Dear Hon. Robert Nicholson,

I am writing with regard to the growing allegations of illegal campaign contributions to Dean Del Mastro’s2008 election campaign.

In addition to previous reports around a personal cheque and possible overspending on voter identification work, recent reports in the Ottawa Citizen[i] [ii] have raised further questions concerns about the legality of some campaign contributions by employees of Deltro Electric Ltd. to Mr. Del Mastro’s election campaign. With these growing allegations, including eyewitnesses, we are concerned the issues surrounding this campaign financing scheme have gone beyond the potential violations of the Elections Act.

We believe these alleged offences fall under federal jurisdiction, potentially crossing several federal laws. Those laws and sections that could be in violation include:

  • Conspiracy to commit fraud over $5000 Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada
  • Making a false claim in a return Section 239(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act
  • Collusion to circumvent contribution limits and concealing the source of a contribution, Section 405.2(1) and Section 405.2(2) respectively of the Canada Election Act

 

At this stage I propose that this matter be referred to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) and theRCMP Commercial Crimes Unit for further investigation and other law enforcement authorities, as appropriate.

According to his mandate, The DPP is responsible for providing prosecutorial advice to law enforcement agencies on investigations that may lead to prosecution under federal laws and for prosecuting criminal offences under federal jurisdiction. It is with this mandate that I believe inclusion of the DPP is appropriate to ensure that all law enforcement agencies are directed accordingly in their investigations.

In the wake of the Sponsorship Scandal, the office of the Director of Public Prosecution was established tooversee these types of prosecutions and ensure freedom from possible or apparent political interference.

Given the evidence already made public and the possible involvement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, it is not only within your mandate to refer this issue to the independent office of the DPP, Ibelieve it is your responsibility to do so.

These are seriously allegations involving a senior member of your government and I trust you will ensure that the investigation, and the laying of charges if appropriate, are done free of any possible conflict of interest.

These allegations must be investigated not just for the sake of the public interest, but to maintain the integrity of the democratic process. Above all else, the criminal justice system must prevail – if crimes were committed the perpetrators must be held to account.

Regards,

Charlie Angus, MP

Timmins-James Bay

 

 

 

Categories: General

Subscribe to the post

3 comments

  1. Pierre says:

    There is no end to t4he NDP making allegations in parliament because they klnow they can do so with impunity and suffer no consequences. By making this a media event, the NDp are through their immunity from slander laws in parliament cucifying a man who hasm no avenue to defend himself and clear his name. He simply has to publicloy suffer teh slings and arrows the NDP and other lefties fire at him. I would ask teh NDp to make the allegations they did in teh house to step out side of teh house if they are so certain of their facts and let the chips fall where they may. As for eyewitness. well three eyewitness ten different sotires. Lets see how they hold up under scrutiny. But I did not see teh NDP call for their scutiny did I Its easy to make allegations in a public fashion when you are protected by parlimentary privilege. What else can you expdect from the NDP. At least jack was a honest NDP er

  2. brian mouland says:

    Why doesnt your party be held to account for doing nothing but whining and crying for over a year Chuckie

  3. CF Howard says:

    The NDP solicited ‘donations’ from unions contrary to Elections Canada rules.
    I heard unions provided advertising during the Federal NDP Party leadership race and convention.

    Apparently people within the Federal NDP Party asked for donations to a newly created Broadbent Institute and they provided a charitable tax credit even though charitable status had not been approved.
    Why was the NDP not fined for this since I understand this was not legal per the Elections Canada or CRA guidelines?

    Is the NDP treated differently than other parties when it comes to funding from unions and for granting to tax free status?

    What about the issue of Liberals running for the leadership who have never paid back their ‘loans’? The amonts are significant.
    The allegations of unpaid ‘loans’ for hedy Fry, Ken Dryben, martha Hall Finlay, etc are very large

    This should beinvestigated.

    Why does it take over 6 years to pay back these loans?

    if they do not pay, will Elections Canda do anything?

    can these ‘loans’ be considered income froma CRA point of view?

Comments are closed.