Commons debate offers example of Tory MP’s arrogance and stonewalling over “Robogate”

No 492 Posted by fw, June 2, 2012

“Once again I say taking it up with Elections Canada is an inadequate response to a serious problem. In 2011 we know there were dozens of ridings in which election fraud took place. I find it absolutely shocking that representatives of any party in the House would be so little concerned, so little troubled that they would leave it to Elections Canada, particularly when budget 2012 cuts Elections Canada’s budget by $7.5 million, further compromising any ability of that agency to get to the bottom of criminal activity.” —Elizabeth May

“Watergate” is Richard Nixon’s legacy — forever. Will “Robogate” be Stephen Harper’s legacy? Elizabeth May seems to want to make it so. “Robogate” is the title she chose for her website version of a Commons question period exchange between herself and Kellie Leith, Conservative MP for Simcoe-Grey, Ontario. Here’s a reposting of the piece. A video clip of Ms May’s opening remarks appears at the end of this post.

If Leith’s answer to May’s repeated question isn’t a classic example of arrogance and stonewalling, then I don’t know what is. But then I have made no attempt to conceal my anti-Harper bias on this blog. Read the exchange and judge for yourself.

Robogate (from Elizabeth May’s website, May 31, 2012)

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pursue a question that I initially put to the Prime Minister on March 1. It relates to an issue that is increasingly worrying to many Canadians regardless of how they voted.

This is not a partisan issue, and I want to set that out as a foundation. I include in my statement of non-partisan interest in this issue that I do not believe for a moment that in ridings where there were alleged dirty tricks there is a chance that Conservative candidates, many of whom I have great affection for, would have known about the voter suppression techniques that were used in the election that took place on May 2, 2011.

With the context out of the way, I want to pursue the question I asked on March 1, which was this: in the context of the voter suppression phone calls, which some people call robocalls, we need to understand them as multiple acts of illegal activity. Each single phone call purporting to be Elections Canada when it was not Elections Canada represents a crime. It is a crime on two levels. It is a crime against our fair and democratic free elections under the Canada Elections Act. Purporting to be someone you are not for purposes of fraud is also a crime under the Criminal Code.

It is criminal activity that occurred multiple times in multiple ridings. That is the context. You can call them robocalls, but it is election fraud we are discussing.

My question for the Prime Minister on March 1 dealt with the fact that I am personally aware of extensive evidence of electoral fraud that occurred in Saanich—Gulf Islands, the riding I represent, in the election in which I was not a candidate, the one in 2008, about which the New Democratic Party filed complaints. The Liberal Party filed complaints. Public interest groups like Democracy Watch filed complaints. Third party groups that were concerned about election fraud also filed complaints. Yet, despite a lot of evidence, the RCMP and Elections Canada were unable to get to the bottom of it, which is why I do not think we are yet on the right track to get to the bottom of what happened on May 2, 2011.

This is not to suggest malfeasance on anyone’s part, it is just the reality that I examined. Let me tell you what happened. The failure to get to the bottom of that leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the Prime Minister must call a public inquiry that is properly funded and has subpoena powers and a proper staff to find out how election fraud took place in 2008 in Saanich—Gulf Islands and across Canada on May 2, 2011.

The reality is this. Calls were made in Saanich—Gulf Islands at the last minute on the night before the election only to those voters who supported the New Democratic Party. What would be strange about how this unknown, mysterious calling program got the phone numbers of people only supporting the NDP, as far as I know, to call purportedly from the NDP and urge people to go out and vote NDP?

There was no NDP candidate on the ballot. The name remained but the candidate had withdrawn. These were spoof calls, as we now know the term, in that the phone number that appeared on the call display was actually a home fax number for an executive within the NDP, who filed complaints. With the information they had, they pursued it. He was initially told to go to the Saanich police and complain there. Then he went to the RCMP.

Nothing was discovered because it was not properly investigated. With issues this important, must we not have a full public inquiry? I asked for a full public inquiry from Elections Canada in May of last year and have still not had a response.

I ask the Conservative Party representatives here tonight to explain how we are going to get to the bottom of this if we do not have an inquiry.

Kellie Leith: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that we are here in Parliament. This is not about parties. This is about speaking to each other as parliamentarians. We are the government here.

As the government stated numerous times in this House regarding issues like this and the most recent issues, we want Elections Canada’s investigations to go ahead regarding the most recent events. However, regarding concerns the member may have for previous elections which she has raised tonight, I would encourage her to follow up with Elections Canada.

Part Two: http://elizabethmaymp.ca/parliament/questions/2012/05/31/adjournment-proceedings-41st-general-election-2/

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary’s invocation that we are parliamentarians here. We are, and as a parliamentarian, I am part of the government, and that is the difficulty we have. When we mess up our language and refer to opposition parties and government parties, we defy the traditions of Westminster parliamentary democracy. I speak here as the Leader of the Green Party, and I speak to my hon. friend, who is a representative of the Conservative Party in the Government of Canada.

Once again I say taking it up with Elections Canada is an inadequate response to a serious problem. In 2011 we know there were dozens of ridings in which election fraud took place. I find it absolutely shocking that representatives of any party in the House would be so little concerned, so little troubled that they would leave it to Elections Canada, particularly when budget 2012 cuts Elections Canada’s budget by $7.5 million, further compromising any ability of that agency to get to the bottom of criminal activity.

Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, this government has expressed its significant concern with these types of issues. As we have said, we encourage and we want Elections Canada to go ahead with investigations on the most recent issues.

Regarding something quite significant that happened in the past, as I mentioned to the member already this evening in the House, I would encourage her to speak with Elections Canada.

RELATED VIEWING

• Elizabeth May: Robogate – YouTube’s 6:28-minute video clip of May in action during the House of Commons question period. The transcript of this clip appears above.

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Trail of election irregularities dating to 2005 raises Elizabeth May’s suspicions

Canada does a poor job of investigating serious election irregularities

No 442 Posted by fw, March 24, 2012

“Canadians must not allow allegations of serious election crimes to be swept under the carpet once again.  It may be that the guilty party is a “win at all costs” attitude; an acceptance of the morally bankrupt idea that anything goes and the only sin is getting caught. We need to know and we need to stop it.” —Elizabeth May

The following is a re-posting of a piece that originally appeared on Elizabeth May’s blog. Ms May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party.

Election fraud: how many unsolved crimes are there and can Elections Canada get to the bottom of them? By Elizabeth May, March 19, 2012

Lately, a lot of allegations have been made that there were election irregularities and some outright crimes committed in the 2011 election.  What we do not know is who was responsible.

But we may be dealing with a serial offender, or offenders.  When one thinks about the election skullduggery of the last six years, it is clear that Canada does a poor job of getting to the bottom of some serious crimes.

Here’s a short list of the ones that still bother me.  They remain unsolved.

1. RCMP interference in the 2006 election. (Remember Zaccardelli issuing a press release about looking into NDP charges that the Liberals had leaked details about the income trust taxation issue? There was nothing to it, but it arguably changed the outcome of the election.)  Issuing a press release in an election campaign was a violation of RCMP normal practice.  Naming a Finance Minister in the release was unheard of. The Public Complaints Commission for the RCMP, under its director Paul Kennedy, tried to question former RCMP Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli. Zaccardelli refused to be questioned and Kennedy lacked subpoena powers.  No one knows if there was any political involvement, inducement or pay-off involved. Zaccardelli is now a senior Interpol officer in Lyon, France.
2. How hard did the Conservatives try to bring down the Martin government in spring 2005?  Did the effort include the offer of a million dollar life insurance policy to Chuck Cadman?  It was alleged, there was a tape.  What happened to the investigation?  If it happened, it was illegal.
3. The Conservative campaign in the Nova Scotia riding of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley in 2008.  Courageous MP Bill Casey had been expelled from the Conservative caucus for voting against the 2008 budget which violated the contract with NS, known as the “Atlantic Accord.”   In 2008, Casey ran as an Independent.  The Conservative Candidate Joel Bernard left Stockwell Day’s office to challenge him. (In an interesting side-bar, the entire Conservative riding association insisted that Bill Casey was their candidate. The Conservative Party fired the whole of the local executive and appointed a secret group to choose their candidate.)  Casey was re-elected handily.  After the election, Casey learned that Bernard’s campaign had gone to the RCMP and alleged that Casey had embezzled funds from the Conservative riding association.  There was no truth to such charges, but it also emerged that efforts had been made to peddle the story to the local media during the election.  Media did not cover it because Casey’s reputation for integrity made it too implausible to treat seriously.  But making unsubstantiated allegations and wasting RCMP resources were themselves possibly criminal acts.
4. In 2008, well-documented robocalls were made into the riding I now hold – Saanich-Gulf Islands.  There are many details of this case in my previous blogs.  It was clearly illegal.  The automated calls claimed to be from the NDP and demonstrably were not. The home fax line of the NDP riding association president had been “spoofed.” (So that his number appeared to be the source of the calls.)  Calls were made that urged citizens to vote for the NDP candidate who had withdrawn from the race. The robocalls may well have changed the outcome of the election.  Yet, Elections Canada dropped the case and ruled no laws had been broken.
5. Were Larry Smith and Fabian Manning given any promises that if they left the Senate to run for a Commons seat in 2011, and were to lose, they would be re-appointed to the Senate?  Both Conservative Senators vied for a seat, one in Montreal, the other in Newfoundland.  Both lost and were re-appointed to the Senate within weeks of the May 2, 2011 election.  Democracy Watch demanded an investigation as, if such a promise was made, it violated the Criminal Code.

Elizabeth May

Add these to the spate of calls in 2011 designed to misdirect voters to non-existent polling places, the allegations of a secret Conservative bank account in Vaughn.  Add to that the legal, but unethical, use of “voter suppression” techniques – attack ads, writ periods at the legal minimum length, disgusting behaviour in the House of Commons – and you have a toxic recipe for poisoning democracy.

Canadians must not allow allegations of serious election crimes to be swept under the carpet once again.  It may be that the guilty party is a “win at all costs” attitude; an acceptance of the morally bankrupt idea that anything goes and the only sin is getting caught.

We need to know and we need to stop it.

MY COMMENT

I would make one change to Ms May’s otherwise excellent recap: I would revise this assertion — it is clear that Canada does a poor job of getting to the bottom of some serious crimes — to read: it is clear that Canada’s journalists do a poor job of getting to the bottom of some serious election crimes and irregularities.

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Don’t delay courts’ review of Robocall tainted election results argues Osgoode Hall law professor

Court reviews are the key. They must happen as soon as possible.

No 434 Posted by fw, March 12, 2012

“The robocall affair puts us at the brink of crisis in our electoral democracy. Yet there appears to be an effort to stifle public outrage, and resolve any doubts in favour of the government, at this still-early stage in the affair. This effort traces to the Harper government, unfortunately, but also to some media commentators.” —Gus Van Harten, Osgoode Hall Law School professor

Professor Harten makes a compelling case for not “delaying the courts’ reviews of questionable results in individual ridings. Those court reviews are the key. They must happen as soon as possible to ensure public confidence in the electoral process. Applications to the courts can be made by any individually-affected voter.”

His article, Robocalls: It’s time to call in the courts, reposted below with two added subheadings and minor reformatting, appeared in TheSpec.com on March 7, 2012. Click on the linked title to read the original piece.

Robocalls: It’s time to call in the courts, by Gus Van Horten

Fraudulently affecting even one election result is a scandal; minimizing this affront to democracy is as bad or worse

The case for opposing an investigation (coming from Harper gov. and some media voices)

The robocall affair puts us at the brink of crisis in our electoral democracy. Yet there appears to be an effort to stifle public outrage, and resolve any doubts in favour of the government, at this still-early stage in the affair. This effort traces to the Harper government, unfortunately, but also to some media commentators. The fire brigade’s argument goes something like this:

• One, there is no evidence that the Conservative Party took part in the robocall affair.
• Two, there are few ridings in which Conservative victory is in doubt.
• Three, in any event, the overall federal election result is beyond question.

Van Horten’s rebuttal and case for immediate court review of questionable election results

All of these points are inaccurate or misleading. They point to a lack of concern for the integrity of the democratic process.

First, it is much too early to judge how many ridings were affected, and to what extent, by the fraudulent telephone interventions in the voting process. These interventions — both robocalls and live calls — are now associated with Conservative Party agents based on a range of reported information, including from Conservative sources. The information includes, among other things, the content and targeting of the robocalls and live calls, the past connections of RackNine to the Conservatives, the resignation of Conservative operative Michael Sona, and publicly reported statements of Sona.

Second, the Conservative majority is very thin. In Ontario alone, there are at least six ridings in which a Conservative candidate won by less than 1,000 votes over a Liberal candidate. There are at least three others in Ontario where the same outcome turned on a margin of 1,000 to 2,000 votes. There are no doubt ridings with similar margins elsewhere in the country.

So, it is not possible to know how widely and deeply voting was tainted in individual ridings. Indeed, it is a massive task to investigate that question thoroughly. However, initial indications from the Elections Canada investigation (which focuses on Guelph only) and from media reports are very troubling. Thus, to suggest that what we know at present allows us to conclude that the overall election outcome was not affected is dubious and irresponsible.

Third, public confidence in the electoral process is sacrosanct. The safest course of action, and possibly the only option, to restore public confidence in the election is to hold by-elections in any riding where there is reason to think that the result could have been different, had the robocalls not taken place. The process to decide this question, riding by riding, must be based on evidence from eligible voters in the riding.

Ultimately, the decision whether to require by-elections is a matter for the courts. But the investigation behind the courts’ decision-making needs to be organized by a body that is independent of government and well-funded. If the government is not prepared to commit to such an investigation immediately, then the other parties should organize it themselves.

Fourth, the fact that the outcome in even one riding may have been determined by fraudulent activity is an absolute scandal, deserving of an independent investigation in itself. That the affair gets boiled down, by some commentators, to whether the outcome in the election overall would have changed (which of course we and they don’t know) suggests either moral bankruptcy or a lack of understanding of the importance of a voting process that has integrity.

Fifth, the next step is an independent and thorough inquiry into the whole affair. The inquiry can be carried out by Elections Canada, by the RCMP, or by a public inquiry with full coercive powers. If Elections Canada, one must ask whether the agency has sufficient resources. If the RCMP, one must ask whether focusing on a few individuals who may have committed crimes is enough, in the face of a potentially systemic problem. If a public inquiry, one must ask whether the government will appoint a judge who has an unquestionable reputation for independence from the government.

Importantly, none of these methods of inquiry is an excuse for delaying the courts’ reviews of questionable results in individual ridings. Those court reviews are the key. They must happen as soon as possible to ensure public confidence in the electoral process. Applications to the courts can be made by any individually-affected voter.

However, the judicial process depends on a fair investigation of the extent of fraudulent intervention in all of the ridings that went down to the wire. We need the courts to protect our democracy.

Gus Van Harten grew up in Burlington. He is a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and worked previously on two public inquiries but comments in a personal capacity.

Troy Media/ troymedia.com

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.