Harry Neufeld contradicts Poilievre on voter fraud

As has become clear in the last month or so, Conservative MPs are not willing to let little things like truth, evidence or personal integrity get in the way of passing their electoral reform bill C-23.

Yesterday, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer testified in front of the committee responsible for studying the bill.  Conservative MPs spent the entire time trying to get the CEO to say that there was a POSSIBILITY of fraud.  The CEO said that the errors that are often quoted by Conservative MPs are actually not an indication of fraud and there has been no evidence that people voting were anything other then eligible voters.

In an attempt to defuse the impact of facts, Pierre Poilievre went on CPAC to "correct the explicit factual error in the CEO's testimony" and again read the sentence from the report that he's quoted so many times he probably hears it in his sleep.  "The Supreme Court made it clear that such errors in other circumstances could contribute to a court overturning an election." 

Now it seems that Mr Neufeld himself, would like to correct Mr. Polilievre's deliberate SELECTIVE quoting.  According to Neufeld at no point in his report did he suggest that any of the irregulatities sited in his report were evidence of fraud.

His recommendations (never quoted by Poilievre )

• voter information cards should be more widely allowed as valid pieces of i.d.
• vouching process and paperwork should be simplified
• elections officials better trained

Author of report touted by Poilievre contradicts minister on voter fraud

Torries want ability to Jail Canadians without Cause

The Senate Bill S-7 being debated at third reading today will give authorities the ability to detain people for up to 12 months even if they are not suspected of any crimes or potential crimes.  Mr. Sullivan MP for York-South Weston describes this best.

He said:

" [The] individual is not a person suspected of being a terrorist, by the way. That is a person who is maybe a relative, maybe a friend. That person, then, would be subject, under the bill, to serious, preventative detention measures.

    As it turns out, this kind of preventative detention was there in the previous act and was never used. Police have managed without this kind of measure to stop terrorism. So, what would its effect be?

    I would like to refer to good, old Uncle Albert, in Moose Jaw, whose nephew, for whatever reason, is suspected of some kind of terrorist act. And so, because they cannot find the nephew, the police come to Uncle Albert's door, put him in jail for a day, then take him before a judge and argue that Uncle Albert might know where the nephew is, so we cannot let Uncle Albert have any more guns. We cannot let Uncle Albert leave the country because we have to be able to interrogate Uncle Albert, Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has done nothing. The police do not suspect him of any terrorism. He just happens to be the uncle of the nephew they do suspect.

    What happens? Uncle Albert says, because he is from Moose Jaw and because he is a farmer and has to keep the varmints off his property, "I can't give up my firearms. I'm not giving up my firearms. I refuse." There would be no choice, then, but to put him in jail for up to 12 months.

    That is the kind of thing that could happen to Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has absolutely no terrorist inclination whatsoever. However, because he is related to somebody the police are only investigating because they suspect there might be some kind of terrorist activity, Uncle Albert would be put in jail for up to 12 months.

    That is not the Canada that I want to be part of. That is not the Canada that Canadians have come to expect, to have as part of their rights and freedoms the right and freedom not to be imprisoned without conviction, without a trial, without a judge.

    That is exactly what the Conservatives are suggesting should happen. That is one of the things to which the NDP said, "Whoa, that goes too far", and the Conservatives said, "Too bad. This is the way we like it. We want this preventative detention to apply to anybody, not just people we suspect of being terrorists, but people who are peripherally related." That would take the bill way too far."

The NDP proposed an amendment to the bill that would make it clear that anybody not suspected of being involved in terrorist activity could not be subject to 'preventative detention' and here was the government response:

"   The recognizance with conditions in its present form would provide the potential for a recognizance with conditions to be imposed...[on a] person who would be subject to the recognizance with conditions [who] is not necessarily the person carrying out a terrorist activity. The proposed amendment [from the NDP] would seek to restrict the application of this measure....

Because that is inconsistent with the policy intent underpinning the provision, we are opposed to it."

The Liberal Party of Canada has also indicated that they will support this bill.  The debate continues in the house today.

Fiscal Responsibility Starts with Factual Information

When Prime Minister Harper ran for office in 2006, he promised to clean up Ottawa. He created the Parliamentary Budget Office so Canadians would know what our government is doing with our money.

The Budget Office has been an unqualified success at cutting through political rhetoric and looking at the straight numerical facts.

From F-35's to prisons, Kevin Page, our first federal budget watchdog, showed that he could hold government accountable for fiscal mismanagement. But Harper let Kevin Page's term expire just before the Tories released the 2013 budget.  

Since taking office the Federal Conservatives have had more closed committee meetings, where the  information is not  divulged to the public, than any other Canadian Government.  If our government believes they can hide their plans from public scrutiny they will be more likely to do things that Canadians don't want.  

Stephen Harper has been extremely secretive on how and with whom he plans to replace Kevin Page our current PBO.   The identities of the people who sit on the PBO search committee are being hidden, even from elected Members of Parliament. The search committee hasn't met yet -- and, Kevin Page has even been banned from meeting with the committee!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's fiscal policies have not held up to fiscal oversight and now he is backing away from his commitment to the Parliamentary Budget Office.