Harper guts Elections Canada to keep cheating

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,539
8,145
113
B.C.
What's that got to do with anything? She could have bought a whole can of orange juice for $2 and kept it cool in the toilet tank! She wasn't "railroaded" out of politics for $16. She was relieved of her position because she couldn't relate to the common man on the street. She's just one of many including Jeanne Sauve, Adrienne Clarkson, Alison Redford.
Yeah her name is Bev Oda and she was a hard working dedicated representative for her riding . She came from good immigrant stock and was never a pig at the trough . She made a simple mistake of ordering a glass of orange juice from room service without checking the cost . Do you expect your representatives to eat at Mcd's while travelling put of country ?


Attitudes like yours is what keeps competent women away from politics so we end up with the likes of Jeanne Sauve , Adrienne Clarkson , Alison Redford and others . I/E pigs waiting in line for their turn to feed .
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
I tink the Conservatives are a little surprised this thing ended up getting traction. Seems to have hit a nerve. Rightly so--you shouldn't be tweaking the democratic process to suit your own party. It's just not good cricket.

As for this being some kind of democratic reform--yeah, not so much. They don't get any ore partisan that Pierre Poilievre.

I thought the Conservatvies would actually turn a little towards the middle come election time. But they are doubling-down instead.

If we are to "tweak" the democratic process then we should really do it right and amend the constitution so no future govt can enact legislation to change it. Start with an amendment to remove all campaign finance that is not from an individual and cap it at $1000. The parties will complain and claim they cannot run a national campaign on this funding but they are supposed to be independent representatives so really only need to campaign in their own riding so this funding should be ample for that. Second, outlaw the party system. These people are supposed to represent their constituents, not the party leadership. This would also eliminate the 'whipped vote' which is about as undemocratic as it gets. I'm sure there are many more ideas surrounding pensions and prosecution and other topics to keep the pols in their place as our servants that can be added or refined but just these 2 would be a good start.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Yeah her name is Bev Oda and she was a hard working dedicated representative for her riding . She came from good immigrant stock and was never a pig at the trough . She made a simple mistake of ordering a glass of orange juice from room service without checking the cost . Do you expect your representatives to eat at Mcd's while travelling put of country ?


Attitudes like yours is what keeps competent women away from politics so we end up with the likes of Jeanne Sauve , Adrienne Clarkson , Alison Redford and others . I/E pigs waiting in line for their turn to feed .


Nah, the $16 orange juice was just the "icing on the cake" after a bunch of other gaffes. However I was remiss in my list of gluttonous bitches..............Pamela Wallin and Helena Guergis. As for Bev Oda you may want to take a gander at the following


"In 2006, Oda paid back $2,200 to taxpayers after the Liberals found that she had incurred nearly $5,500 in limousine rides at the 2006 Juno Awards in Halifax.[12] In 2008, she was accused of hiding over $17,000 of limousine expenses billed to taxpayers.[12]
In February 2011, Bev Oda admitted to directing one of her staff to add a handwritten annotation to an already signed Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) memo in 2009 that resulted in a funding recommendation for KAIROS being ignored.[13] The memo was altered by the addition of 'not'[1] into the recommendation line of the document.[14] When asked about the matter, Oda had at first told Parliament that she did not know who had made the change.[13] Opposition MPs on the House Foreign Affairs committee requested that the Speaker rule on the possible contempt of parliament against Oda but Prime Minister Harper continued to support Oda.[15] On March 9, 2011, the Speaker of the House made a ruling on the issue of Oda's behaviour, stating that "on its face" Oda's statements had caused confusion, which still persisted. Oda replied in the House that she was ready to answer to the confusion, at a House of Commons special committee meeting to be held over three full days the following week.[16] Speaker Peter Milliken found on prima facie that the controversy warranted further investigation by a formal parliamentary committee; however, the committee was not able to reach a decision regarding Oda, as the parliamentary session was brought to an end following the non-confidence motion that triggered the 2011 federal election.[17][18] That election saw Oda retain her seat with 54% of the popular vote.[19]
On April 23, 2012, it was reported that during a 2011 conference on immunization of poor children Oda had refused to stay in the conference hotel (the Grange St. Paul) furnished by hosts.[20] She instead stayed at the Savoy Hotel at a cost of $665 per night for three nights, ordered orange juice at a cost of $16 and hired a limousine to transport her between her new hotel and the conference. She was also charged $250 for smoking in a non-smoking room.[21] The costs incurred were at public expense.[20] Only after widespread media reports of this misuse of public money emerged approximately ten months after the conference did Oda repay the difference in hotel costs but not the limousine costs incurred by her decision.[22] The total amount she paid back after she was exposed by the media was $1,353.81.[23] By April 26, it was announced that Oda had repaid the expenses incurred on the taxi rides as well.[24]
On April 24, 2012, Oda stood in the House of Commons, in response to a question from interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, and admitted she should never have charged Canadian taxpayers for her stay at the Savoy. She said, "The expenses are unacceptable, should never have been charged to taxpayers…I have repaid the costs associated with [the] changing of hotels and I unreservedly apologize."[25] Criticism of her spending habits continued, however. On July 3, 2012, Oda announced her intention to leave politics effective July 31, 2012, ahead of an anticipated cabinet shuffle;[1] Oda gave no reason for her departure.[26] Reportedly, her decision to resign was made after she was informed that she would be dropped from cabinet.[26] On July 4, 2012, she was replaced as Minister of International Cooperation by Julian Fantino"
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
I tink the Conservatives are a little surprised this thing ended up getting traction. Seems to have hit a nerve. Rightly so--you shouldn't be tweaking the democratic process to suit your own party. It's just not good cricket.

As for this being some kind of democratic reform--yeah, not so much. They don't get any ore partisan that Pierre Poilievre.

I thought the Conservatvies would actually turn a little towards the middle come election time. But they are doubling-down instead.

Yup, they seem to be going for the whole shooting match on this bill, if they do get to impose such an unbalanced electoral system, it will be very hard to catch them cheating in the future and many of those who traditionally don't vote conservative won't be part of the process...which seems to be what the Harper government wants when you look at the robocalls scandal.

This "bill" was probably thought up as a purely strategic move from the un-elected appointees in the PMO who are running Canada these days. No one from the outside was brought into the process despite Poilievre's lies to the contrary.

Fair Elections Act: Public Prosecutor Not Consulted On Planned New Role

The plan to hive off the commissioner of elections from Elections Canada and move him under the auspices of the director of public prosecutions is a key component of a proposed overhaul of election laws, which has been almost universally panned by Canadian and international electoral experts.

Chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand says he was not consulted on Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act.

Nor was the commissioner of elections, Yves Cote, who is responsible for enforcing election laws and investigating breaches.

Both have spoken out against the move, which they fear will impede investigations and reduce the commissioner's independence.

Brian Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, declined a request for comment from The Canadian Press. But spokesman Dan Brien confirmed that Saunders was not consulted either.

Pierre Poilievre, the minister responsible for democratic reform, has shrugged off the objections of Elections Canada.

Poilievre may be shrugging off valid concerns over the very undemocratic nature of this bill, but if we really are serious about having real democratic input in Canada then this move needs to be resisted.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
This doesn't provide any advantage to one specific party.

Quite frankly, it is a non-issue that you only hear about from those that have an axe to grind

Well, that's the orthodox line for the Conservatives, but it is certainly isn't widely shared. It's been lambasted from all quarters--The National Post, the Globe and Mail, the former auditor general, Elections Canada, among others-- as an attack on the democratic system to tilt the balance in favour of the Conservatives. It's perhaps best evidenced by the Conservatives continuing to drop in the polls.

If we are to "tweak" the democratic process then we should really do it right and amend the constitution so no future govt can enact legislation to change it. Start with an amendment to remove all campaign finance that is not from an individual and cap it at $1000. The parties will complain and claim they cannot run a national campaign on this funding but they are supposed to be independent representatives so really only need to campaign in their own riding so this funding should be ample for that. Second, outlaw the party system. These people are supposed to represent their constituents, not the party leadership. This would also eliminate the 'whipped vote' which is about as undemocratic as it gets. I'm sure there are many more ideas surrounding pensions and prosecution and other topics to keep the pols in their place as our servants that can be added or refined but just these 2 would be a good start.

I don't think you should outlaw the party system. I don't even think you could outlaw the party system. It's justa natural outcome of a Parliamentary system. If you team up with others you'll be indepdents every time.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Now instead of actually acting in a democratic manner, Pierre Poilievre is resorting to the tried and tested conservative tactic of destroying the messenger instead of addressing the validity of the message.

Pierre Poilievre: Elections Watchdog Wants More Power, Bigger Budget

OTTAWA - Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre launched an all-out and highly personal attack Tuesday on Canada's chief elections watchdog.

He accused chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand of opposing the controversial, proposed overhaul of elections laws because he wants more power for himself, more money and less accountability.

Moreover, Poilievre said Mayrand is making "astounding," "amazing" and untrue allegations as he grasps at straws to defeat Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act.

And he predicted that Mayrand will never support the bill, no matter what amendments or improvements may be made to it, because the government will not give him what he wants.

The conservatives like to pick one person and make an example of him or her to discourage any sort of independent thought within our political system, Mayrand is just the lastest in a long line of people picked out for character assassination by the very hypocritical conservatives. No party has concentrated power in this nation to the degree of Steven Harper.

Marc Mayrand and others are doing what they're supposed to do, standing up to a government that has consistently demonstrated contempt for the democratic process in this nation that it now wants to codify.

Allowing steps like the "Fair" Elections Act is like signing off on a Canadian one party state.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
The conservatives obviously don't care about the long term impacts of this bill, the same way they don't seem to care about the long term impacts of everything else they do, socially, economically or ecologically.

Everything you need to know about the Fair Elections Act - The Globe and Mail

Critically, the CEO and Elections Canada also won’t be allowed to publicly encourage citizens to vote – as they have with ad campaigns in previous elections – but only give the technical information about where and how to vote. The Conservatives argue it’s up to political parties to drive voter turnout. Former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley told a committee the changes must not go through. If it does, “Canadians will lose their trust and confidence in our elections,” he told a committee.

This is among the most contentious provisions in the bill. It is expected to effectively derail certain programs Elections Canada partners with, such as Student Vote, an initiative that runs parallel elections in schools for students under the voting age in an effort to boost civic literacy. These groups, which also include Rotary, Boys and Girls Clubs and the Library of Parliament, worry funding for certain programs could be reduced or cut as a consequence of the bill. Student Vote says it received $743,655 in cash and in-kind contributions from Elections Canada in 2011 to run Student Vote for over 500,000 kids. Taylor Gunn, the head of the group running the program, asked the committee considering the bill to ensure Student Vote can continue. Alison Loat – the co-founder and executive director of Samara, a Canadian think-tank focused on political issues – agreed and said the Chief Electoral Officer’s education function should be “strengthened rather than eliminated, particularly given its support of programs such as Student Vote that have proven results.” She called for the proposal to be abandoned.

Former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley also told a committee the changes must not go through. If it does, “Canadians will lose their trust and confidence in our elections,” he told a committee.

We should always keep in mind that the Harper government due to its past actions and reluctance to take responsibility for those illegal activities has no real credibility when it comes to even defining what a fair election is. Is it a fair election when a party moves large amounts of money in and out of various accounts to circumvent elections laws. Is it a fair election when thousands of non-conservative Canadians receive automated phone calls telling them to go to non-existent polling stations that can be traced back to conservative campaign offices.

We know for a fact that the Harper government is the least democratic one we've ever had, and now it's showing just how little respect it actually has for the traditions and intent of our political system that underlies all of Canadian society. This so that one party and more precisely one man can be placed in a position to force us to go in a direction we otherwise would never chose.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
No democratic government should be working in this way to limit the exercise of the vote the way the conservatives seem to be with this bill.

Elections Canada Online | Elections Canada's Proposed Amendments to Bill C-23

Once more it's zero sum game politics by a PM and a party that are so focused on their own narrow interests that the majority of Canadians functionally cease to exist.

Some of the elements of Bill C-23 are probably unconstitutional anyway.

Sheila Fraser: changes would 'infringe' on Elections Canada - Politics - CBC News

Baker argues a provision that would eliminate vouching, a process that lets someone swear to another person's identity and address so that person can vote, would disenfranchise Canadians and is therefore unconstitutional.

"You know, there is a law that says you can't intentionally pass an unconstitutional measure in Parliament. I mean, you can't do it. So I believe that the amendments will take place in the House of Commons regardless of what the minister says," Baker said.

"He's going to have to bow to this. He's going to have to admit that the government of Canada in the past, when these issues arose, said our failsafe to protect somebody's right to vote is vouching."

This is also going to come down to how slavish all conservatives have become in regards to Harper's will.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Cobalt, do you have a girlfriend? I mean, other than your hand.


 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
As this really isn't a political debate anymore then I'll leave you to the personal attack fest that passes for conservative discussion when you run out of actual facts.

I honestly think that a party that has already been found guilty of violating elections laws with in and out campaign funding and probably broke the laws on a massive scale with robocall cutting funding to the body that's entrusted with upholding fair elections in Canada is news.

You talk of Liberal arrogance but can't seem to see it in yourselves...which is probably a good thing come next election.







It is too bad some resort to the standard 'shoot the messenger', 'not the message' but If we look at all the smears the Harper CONS are doing to those telling the truth, the apple doesn't fall far to the Harperite supporters on here bashing the commenters as opposed to the problem.


Geezzz........Even the non liberal CTV thinks they are scumming out on this............










First, we find out that moving elections investigations to the AG department actually WAS because the Harper Cons are blaming the messenger, Elections Canada for the elections scandals which have plagued their party since 2006 -- instead of blaming their own colleagues and their own staff, those guys who actually, you know, broke the law and lied about it:

Mr. Aspin is the first Conservative to publicly voice suspicions within the party that, somehow, the two reporters who broke the robocalls story, Ottawa Citizen Glen McGregor and Postmedia News Stephen Maher, were the recipients of leaked information from Elections Canada.... Asked if he believes the Conservative suspicion about leaks to journalists from the Elections Canada investigation was the reason behind the government’s distrust of the agency and its decision to transfer investigative powers through Bill C-23, Mr. Aspin replied: “I’m sure it had an impact, because, I mean, the investigations I don’t think were handled professionally, and that’s a non-partisan comment.”This accusation was echoed by a former Harper Communications Director, Geoff Norquay, who told CBC that the act is "vengeance" on the Chief Electoral Officer. As reported by Jason Koblovsky at Mind Bending Politics:

Norquay’s “vengeance” comments stunned all of the members of the Power Panel to which he was commenting on. Norquay later tried to retract.I'll bet he did.

And finally today, we have the unprecedented and appalling spectacle of a government minister, Pierre Pollievre, launching a vicious personal attack against a civil servant, Marc Mayrand.

...Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre accused Marc Mayrand of opposing the proposed overhaul of election laws because he wants more power for himself. Poilievre told the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee that Mayrand is making “astounding” and “amazing” allegations about the Fair Elections Act, or Bill-C23.

"He wants more power, a bigger budget and less accountability,” Poilievre said.Personal attacks like this are the last refuge of scoundrels, and the surest sign yet that the Harper Cons know their terrible elections bill is flaming out.
 

relic

Council Member
Nov 29, 2009
1,408
3
38
Nova Scotia
Is this really the kind of **** that people voted for ? That little Doogy Hauser look a like is one cross wired piece of ****, any body that believes one word that comes out of his gob is a moron !
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
It is too bad some resort to the standard 'shoot the messenger', 'not the message' but If we look at all the smears the Harper CONS are doing to those telling the truth, the apple doesn't fall far to the Harperite supporters on here bashing the commenters as opposed to the problem.


Geezzz........Even the non liberal CTV thinks they are scumming out on this............










First, we find out that moving elections investigations to the AG department actually WAS because the Harper Cons are blaming the messenger, Elections Canada for the elections scandals which have plagued their party since 2006 -- instead of blaming their own colleagues and their own staff, those guys who actually, you know, broke the law and lied about it:

Mr. Aspin is the first Conservative to publicly voice suspicions within the party that, somehow, the two reporters who broke the robocalls story, Ottawa Citizen Glen McGregor and Postmedia News Stephen Maher, were the recipients of leaked information from Elections Canada.... Asked if he believes the Conservative suspicion about leaks to journalists from the Elections Canada investigation was the reason behind the government’s distrust of the agency and its decision to transfer investigative powers through Bill C-23, Mr. Aspin replied: “I’m sure it had an impact, because, I mean, the investigations I don’t think were handled professionally, and that’s a non-partisan comment.”This accusation was echoed by a former Harper Communications Director, Geoff Norquay, who told CBC that the act is "vengeance" on the Chief Electoral Officer. As reported by Jason Koblovsky at Mind Bending Politics:

Norquay’s “vengeance” comments stunned all of the members of the Power Panel to which he was commenting on. Norquay later tried to retract.I'll bet he did.

And finally today, we have the unprecedented and appalling spectacle of a government minister, Pierre Pollievre, launching a vicious personal attack against a civil servant, Marc Mayrand.

...Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre accused Marc Mayrand of opposing the proposed overhaul of election laws because he wants more power for himself. Poilievre told the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee that Mayrand is making “astounding” and “amazing” allegations about the Fair Elections Act, or Bill-C23.

"He wants more power, a bigger budget and less accountability,” Poilievre said.Personal attacks like this are the last refuge of scoundrels, and the surest sign yet that the Harper Cons know their terrible elections bill is flaming out.

This is what Harper himself had to say back in 1996 about a Liberal bill that had far more support than the very controversial conservative bill C-23.

Stephen Harper's Electoral Reform View Starkly Different In 1996

Excerpts from a Harper speech to the House of Commons on Nov. 26, 1996:

"I intend to oppose this bill that imposes changes to the federal elections act without the consent of the opposition parties."

"In my view, the procedure of using time allocation for electoral law, doing it quickly and without the consent of the other political parties, is the kind of dangerous application of electoral practices that we are more likely to find in Third World countries."

"Every indication that we have had during the debate, in the committee hearings and in the House, has been that with further discussion we would reach an all-party consensus on virtually all of the items in the legislation."

"We have worked well with individual members of the government ... and other members of government staff who have worked to try to facilitate discussion and agreement on individual items. We acknowledge the importance of this work. Nevertheless, we have been operating within a terribly constricted timetable, a process that has not allowed us to come to a consensus."

On closing election day polls at 7 p.m. in British Columbia and 7:30 p.m. in Alberta: "People will be very upset when they realize the implications of this. I will say to them, a little bit tongue in cheek, to make sure the government pays for this decision at the polls — if they can get there, and that is an important if."

Going by his own earlier words Harper is acting like a third world dictator in forcing an elections reform bill through that has no support from the opposition.

And as he said at the time, the conservatives should pay for this contempt of our democratic system at the polls in 2015.

What's being done by the conservatives is very disgusting when you look at who will likely be denied the right to vote.

Fair Elections Act: Harper Pressed On Concerns From Seniors, Students

CARP released a letter from a woman named Sharon from Spruce Grove, Alta., who did not want her full identity known for fear of reprisals from other Conservatives in her area. The emotional letter described how Sharon feared her 97-year-old mother would be denied her right to vote.

he discussed how her mother had to leave her own home to live with her daughter, then had to move to assisted living, then to the hospital after suffering a bad fall, and then to another long-term-care facility. Her mother's finances are set up through automatic deposits and withdrawals so she has no bills with her address and no correspondence other than cards and letters from friends. Her driver's licence has expired. Her Alberta Health Care Card has her name but no address.

"The impaired mobility and very low income and not knowing how her life was going to play out. ID was not a priority," Sharon wrote.

"Who would have ever dreamed that the government was going to take her democratic rights away?" she asked.

Her family's roots in Canada date back long before the world wars of the 20th century that claimed several relatives.They fought for democracy, she said, along with her father who spent more than 30 years in the military and sacrificed through the Great Depression.

"It is a shame that this government is stealing from those who cannot fight for themselves whether disabled or elderly or simply guilty of poverty and homelessness," she wrote.

Not that I think Harper is capable of actually feeling shame after all the betrayal of promises in the last 8 years, but he really should be ashamed over what he's doing to Canada and all Canadians.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,539
8,145
113
B.C.
This is what Harper himself had to say back in 1996 about a Liberal bill that had far more support than the very controversial conservative bill C-23.

Stephen Harper's Electoral Reform View Starkly Different In 1996





Going by his own earlier words Harper is acting like a third world dictator in forcing an elections reform bill through that has no support from the opposition.

And as he said at the time, the conservatives should pay for this contempt of our democratic system at the polls in 2015.

What's being done by the conservatives is very disgusting when you look at who will likely be denied the right to vote.

Fair Elections Act: Harper Pressed On Concerns From Seniors, Students





Not that I think Harper is capable of actually feeling shame after all the betrayal of promises in the last 8 years, but he really should be ashamed over what he's doing to Canada and all Canadians.
B.S. the only people that will be denied voting rights are those that want to game the system .
And sadly you know that .
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Everyone has an agenda on forums........some are just further from reality than others.............

And some, like you, have their head so far up a conservative a$$ they can't know whether it's day or night. I have a huge advantage in objective opinion on these topics because I don't support any party...I hate them all equally! So just like I can say BT was out to lunch claiming the bill regarding hate speech was completely aimed at criticism of Israel (which it wasn't) and I can say I support Harper 86ing the long gun registry I can also say removing power from elections Canada, a group with no party affiliation, and transferring it to the AG, an individual appointed by the PM who is a member of that party, is horsesh*t! I can also categorically state there is much evidence of underhanded and illegal acts by the CPC during elections. Anyone who tries to deny this is deluded and experiencing a psychotic break from reality equivalent to any liberal supporter denying the sponsorship scam.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
B.S. the only people that will be denied voting rights are those that want to game the system .
And sadly you know that .

Or those that due to their socio-economic status won't have the reasonable expectation of jumping through the new hoops being created by the party that attempted to send thousands of non-supporters to the wrong locations to vote the last time out.

This is clearly an extension of an ongoing campaign to limit the rights of people who don't support the governing party.

The conservatives have already been caught lying about the need for much tighter controls on who votes while at the same time doing virtually nothing to investigate the worst example of voter fraud in our history...which just happened to be carried out for their benefit using their proprietary data by their own campaign workers.

There's no way that a party with such a pathetic record of respecting the electoral system here should be ramming an elections "reform" bill through the house with little or no accountability or input from the opposition and other parties with a stake in this. This Canada as conservative Inc. BS needs to stop if actually do want to live in a free Canada.