.

[Boges]

No. You're more observant than I am CC.

Or he's the only person that tells us what's trending on Twitter and has time to watch Question Period each day.

[capricorn]

I think you're the last person here to realize this..

Which proves I give benefit of the doubt until I'm convinced otherwise. That's how evenhanded I am.

[madmax]

Were the liberals majority governments this bad at answering questions?

Yes they were.. especially regarding adscam which is why it was a long drawn out affair.

No Different then Brian Mulroney and his even longer drawn out affair....where even an apology and compensation was awarded to the denier... of course we all know the truth about what happened with these two governments.

Both were trying to hide the facts with their answers and diversions.

The CPC says it has nothing to hide.. but what they have to offer is only after their teeth are pulled.....

[capricorn]

I didn't pay attention to politics much until 2010, did the liberals also read scripts everyday for QP or is that just a harper thing?

I suppose you never heard of Liberal MP Don (Binder Boy) Boudria.

Boudria was known within the Liberal caucus as a leading Chrétien loyalist. During Question Period, he frequently handed Chrétien notes from a white binder, a practice that led Reform Party deputy leader Deb Grey to call him "Binder Boy." The nickname stuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Boudria

Man, those were the days.

[madmax]

I give all parties the benefit of the doubt until there is enough evidence of guilt. Like in the case of Guelph Liberal MP Valeriote who confessed to robocalls made by a campaign worker using a fake name and failing to identify the calls coming from his campaign. He broke election rules and on the evidence, he is guilty.

Exactly... just like the Conservatives broke the Elections laws with the In and Out scam and confessed.

[madmax]

96 CPC MPs took part in the in & out fraud scheme but you probably still voted for the party eh... how can anyone vote for a party where that many party members took part in a fraud scheme?

People continued to Vote for the Liberals even after adscam... People will often plug their nose and vote for their party... hoping they don't get worse ... or they are apologists to the activity...

The in and out scam is something only those involved in the process can understand...just how criminal the activity was.. to the General Public... its just confusing... which is what the government counts on.

There is alot of hypocrisy right now with Conservatives as their rush to corrupt practices is surfacing at a faster rate then the previous Liberal governments...

IT will take time for the public to have a reform agenda take root again..but it will be coming...

In the meantime.. the Elections Fraud committed has alot of deniers.. but the evidence still leads to Conservative insiders.

Racknine.. the CMIS, and the Party Lists are strictly guarded and few have access and any access is controlled.

Its just a matter of time... this is a Marathon and I am surprised that the story still has daily if not weekly legs.

But this story isn't going away...

The Liberals had lots of little victories where they won the battle on Adscam..

But by the end they lost the war... cause a coverup is a coverup.

[cybercoma]

Just a reminder of what went on and is still going on in Irwin Cotler's riding. This comes together with everything else that has been posted on the voter-suppression scandal.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/13/tory-calls-didnt-breach-liberal-mp-irwin-cotlers-parliamentary-privileges-speaker-rules/

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives did not breach the parliamentary privileges of Liberal MP Irwin Cotler by organizing a telephone polling campaign in his Montreal riding which spread erroneous reports about his resignation, according to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

The ruling by Andrew Scheer came Tuesday after the daily Question Period in Parliament. Mr. Scheer ruled that the Tories’ polling campaign in Mr. Cotler’s riding, though “questionable” and “reprehensible,” did not impair his ability to do his job as an MP.

The ruling came in the wake of growing complaints that the Tories engaged in a “dirty tricks” campaign to destabilize Mr. Cotler, possibly to force a by-election and pave the way for a Conservative candidate who nearly won the coveted Mount Royal riding in the recent general election.

...

But the Tories said the polling firm was hired to “identify” potential supporters for the next election and that people who received the calls were merely told, if they asked, that there had been rumours of a potential by-election.

...

At the forefront in putting forward the Tories’ defence was rookie New Brunswick MP John Williamson — who, previously, was Mr. Harper’s director of communications in the Prime Minister’s Office.

...

“I, for one, would concede that political parties cannot say whatever they want and there must be some element of truth. Nothing here crossed the line, and although the calls were perhaps tough, they were still acceptable in the day-to-day world of political jockeying.”

...

It was quickly learned, through call display features on the constituents’ phones, that the calls had come from a firm called Campaign Research. Among the firm’s senior members are Nick Kouvalis, who polled for Rob Ford in his successful bid for the Toronto mayoralty in 2010, and Richard Ciano.

Misleading phone calls, campaign research, ties to the PMO and Harper's director of communications, Scheer's baffling ruling....

And seriously "some element of truth"? Is that an admission of lying. Either you're telling the truth or not. There's no in between. What exactly is "some element"?

Now... about that independent inquiry.

Edited March 22, 2012 by cybercoma

[madmax]

And the reports keep coming in...

http://www.canada.com/Robocalls+rang+North+Island+says+Leonard/6347163/story.html

Not Close to Guelph Ontario..

"The first person approached me at the Seedy Saturday event and said that they had gotten one of those robocalls at the time of the election and did complain to the local elections office who gave them information to make a formal complaint to Elections Canada, which she did do," Leonard said.

"She lived in Comox at the time and had been redirected to the Comox Mall. She was mad because that's not where you vote and she knew. She also told me that she had friends that were in Little River and the husband had answered the phone to a robocall as well.

"Then I found out that somebody in Merville had received one of these calls, directing her to go to the old Tsolum School, several kilometres away, rather than where she had voted for decades at Merville Hall. She's made a complaint to Elections Canada."

Leonard said she also got an email from another woman saying she'd received a robocall and had reported it to Elections Canada.

"Because a number of them had actually made complaints to Elections Canada officials at the time, I feel pretty confident that they're valid concerns that were raised and that they actually did occur," Leonard said.

"

I find it very strange that the Conservatives and their Supporters wish to minimize this fraudulent activity.

[cybercoma]

I don't find it odd at all. Some people here think it's a joke. These are very serious allegations that not only undermine the legitimacy of this government, but confirm for people who don't vote that there's no point in doing so because the process is corrupt anyway. This undermines our entire goverment. Rick Mercer is right. If ever there was a time that the Governor General needed to get involved, this is it.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure I understand the position of those screaming bloody murder here. Wait for Elections Canada to do their investigation. We don't understand the scope or seriousness of this for certain until then.

[g_bambino]

If ever there was a time that the Governor General needed to get involved, this is it.

Hardly. I strongly suspect the Governor General is following this matter closely; but, Elections Canada hasn't completed its investigation, the Prime Minister retains the confidence of the House of Commons, and no constitutional law or convention has been found to have been broken. For the Governor General to right now act against his prime minister would thus be completely out of bounds and, as such, would make the Governor General himself much more of a threat to the functioning of government than anyone else at the moment.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited March 23, 2012 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure that the Governor General would be acting against the Prime Minister. All that's being asked here is for a Royal Commission on voter-suppression and electoral fraud. If the MPs haven't the slightest clue who is responsible and the Prime Minister refuses to create a commission, the Governor General ought to call for it for the sake of our democratic institutions. It's not as though calling a Royal Commission is an attack on the governing party. We have no idea who's responsible or if anything even happened. All that's being asked for here is a full public investigation and the Conservatives have made it clear that they want no part of that. Frankly, the threat to our democratic institutions is high, so it seems strange that they wouldn't want it. Since there is such a serious threat, the Governor General ought to get involved for the sake of our institutions. If he doesn't now, then there is no reason for a Governor General ever to get involved and I return to my stance that he's nothing more than a paper figurehead with absolutely no authority.

[g_bambino]

I'm not sure that the Governor General would be acting against the Prime Minister. All that's being asked here is for a Royal Commission on voter-suppression and electoral fraud.

The Governor General is supposed to be guided by his ministers in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. If he used that power to call a Royal Commission without ministerial advice, at a time when the government still holds the confidence of the House of Commons and has not yet been found to be in breach of any constitutional law or convention, he would cause a rift between himself and his ministers, essentially saying he no longer sees them as fit to offer him advice. If that were done, the convention is thus that the Prime Minister should tender his resignation, which would leave Johnston looking for someone else who can hold the confidence of the Commons to be prime minister. Alternately, Harper could advise the Queen to appoint someone else as governor general; but, that then drags the monarch into an ever-widening political mess, which would cause even more instability (though, it's likely she would follow that advice, since Johnston had acted unconstitutionally).

There's nothing ruling out the possibility that the Governor General may have to act. But, now is certainly not the time. As I (and others) have said repeatedly: Elections Canada hasn't even finished its investigation yet.

[PIK]

I am sure if the cons were guilty and EC had the goods ,it would have been leaked out by now.

[capricorn]

All that's being asked here is for a Royal Commission on voter-suppression and electoral fraud.

CC, all matters relating to elections fall within the legislated and legitimate mandate of Elections Canada. Essentially, what you're advocating the Prime Minister do is ignore The Elections Act. IMO, that is a form of contempt of Parliament, the body that brought into law the Elections Act.

The proper route is to let Elections Canada report to Parliament, as per the law. Afterward, if parliamentarians want to take a closer look at the conduct of elections they could bring pressure to bear on the Prime Minister to take action. Would this need to be accomplished through a Royal Commission or a public inquiry? I believe there are other alternatives, such as creating an advisory panel to study well defined electoral matters and a deadline to report to Parliament.

[Vendetta]

CC, all matters relating to elections fall within the legislated and legitimate mandate of Elections Canada. Essentially, what you're advocating the Prime Minister do is ignore The Elections Act. IMO, that is a form of contempt of Parliament, the body that brought into law the Elections Act.

The proper route is to let Elections Canada report to Parliament, as per the law. Afterward, if parliamentarians want to take a closer look at the conduct of elections they could bring pressure to bear on the Prime Minister to take action. Would this need to be accomplished through a Royal Commission or a public inquiry? I believe there are other alternatives, such as creating an advisory panel to study well defined electoral matters and a deadline to report to Parliament.

yeah just let the Conservative Crime minister investigate his own party, and cops investigate themselves when they are accused of wrongdoing. I'm sure both will work really hard to get to the bottom of their crimes. (so that they can cover them up more effectively)

Maybe we should turn over all organized crime investigations to the president of the Hell's Angels too?

Edited March 23, 2012 by Vendetta

[cybercoma]

The Governor General is supposed to be guided by his ministers in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. If he used that power to call a Royal Commission without ministerial advice, at a time when the government still holds the confidence of the House of Commons and has not yet been found to be in breach of any constitutional law or convention, he would cause a rift between himself and his ministers, essentially saying he no longer sees them as fit to offer him advice. If that were done, the convention is thus that the Prime Minister should tender his resignation, which would leave Johnston looking for someone else who can hold the confidence of the Commons to be prime minister. Alternately, Harper could advise the Queen to appoint someone else as governor general; but, that then drags the monarch into an ever-widening political mess, which would cause even more instability (though, it's likely she would follow that advice, since Johnston had acted unconstitutionally).

There's nothing ruling out the possibility that the Governor General may have to act. But, now is certainly not the time. As I (and others) have said repeatedly: Elections Canada hasn't even finished its investigation yet.

So even when there's a possibility that those ministers are the ones responsibility for undermining the political legitimacy of the government, they have to be the ones to call for the Royal Commission? Say they were responsibility, why the hell would they advise him to call a Royal Commission? There's no point. And if they only hold the confidence of the House because there was large-scale and systematic effort to suppress the vote, then what? The ministers are in a conflict of interest with this investigation and the legitimacy of parliament has been called into question. Elections Canada needs to do their investigation, but when the legitimacy of our democratic institutions is being questioned that's as good a time as any for the Governor General to act unilaterally. He needs to do something to restore this country's faith in our democratic institutions. Roughly 75% of Canadians want a public inquiry into the matter and those ministers who advise the Governor General may be at the heart of it. Yet, he has to rely on them to call on him to initiate the investigation? The monarchy then is totally useless. Completely and utterly a sham. The Governor General is nothing more than a puppet to the Prime Minister and offers absolutely no security against any fraudulent or corrupt government, so long as that government holds a majority.

[Smallc]

So even when there's a possibility that those ministers are the ones responsibility for undermining the political legitimacy of the government, they have to be the ones to call for the Royal Commission?

As you say, as of now, it's only a possibility. There is no real proof of anything, no real clear allegations, and certainly no convictions at this point. On what evidence should the Governor General of Canada act? Why, at this point, with no proof of wrongdoing, would he go against the advice of his ministers and bring down what is, as far as we know, a democratically legitimate government?

I think you've become so wrapped up in this scandal that you've lost all objectivity.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

So even when there's a possibility that those ministers are the ones responsibility for undermining the political legitimacy of the government, they have to be the ones to call for the Royal Commission?.

Yes, that's right; "a possibility" isn't enough grounds for the Governor General to split from his ministers. There must be certainty that our democratic institutions have been compromised; not simply a suspicion based on tenuous theories and garbled evidence.

If Elections Canada found a minister other than the Prime Minister had been complicit in election fraud, it would be up to the Prime Minister to advise the Governor General to dismiss that person and appoint whomever the Prime Minister puts up as a replacement. If Elections Canada found that the Prime Minister was complicit in election fraud, then the Governor General would first have to let the House of Commons decide what to do with Harper; withdraw its confidence or maintain it. If the former took place, whomever received the confidence would then be appointed as the new prime minister. If the latter happened, the Johnston would likely dissolve parliament and call an election, to let voters decide on the matter.

The monarchy then is totally useless. Completely and utterly a sham.

Only to someone who places ridiculous expectations on it.

I have to say, I don't quite understand: You're all about due process in the courts, but want the Governor General to toss it aside here, to preempt other parts of the system before they've had the chance to do their part and take an unconstitutional action with no more than a suspicion as justification.

[ed.: punct]

Edited March 23, 2012 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

As you say, as of now, it's only a possibility. There is no real proof of anything, no real clear allegations, and certainly no convictions at this point. On what evidence should the Governor General of Canada act? Why, at this point, with no proof of wrongdoing, would he go against the advice of his ministers and bring down what is, as far as we know, a democratically legitimate government?

I think you've become so wrapped up in this scandal that you've lost all objectivity.

So let me see if I understand your point correctly: the Governor General needs proof of wrongdoing in order to launch an investigation to find proof of wrongdoing.

That doesn't sound the least bit useful.

[Smallc]

So let me see if I understand your point correctly: the Governor General needs proof of wrongdoing in order to launch an investigation to find proof of wrongdoing.

The Governor General isn't one to launch investigations. That is the job of law enforcement, and in this case Elections Canada. They are currently doing an investigation. At this time, going beyond that would be nothing but a witch hunt. The GG, like everyone else, must await the outcome of the investigation currently being done by the proper authorities.

[cybercoma]

Yes, that's right; "a possibility" isn't enough grounds for the Governor General to split from his ministers. There must be certainty that our democratic institutions have been compromised; not simply a suspicion based on tenuous theories and garbled evidence.

...

I have to say, I don't quite understand: You're all about due process in the courts, but want the Governor General to toss it aside here, to preempt other parts of the system before they've had the chance to do their part and take an unconstitutional action with no more than a suspicion as justification.

See my previous reply to Smallc.

If Elections Canada found a minister other than the Prime Minister had been complicit in election fraud, it would be up to the Prime Minister to advise the Governor General to dismiss that person and appoint whomever the Prime Minister puts up as a replacement.

Yes. I follow you here.

If Elections Canada found that the Prime Minister was complicit in election fraud, then the Governor General would first have to let the House of Commons decide what to do with Harper; withdraw its confidence or maintain it.

And this is where I said a Prime Minister is untouchable, so long as he has a majority government. Is he really going to lose the confidence of the House when his party will be whipped into voting to maintain power? Are the Conservative MPs really going to vote to dissolve the House against their own leader? Absolutely not. There isn't a chance in hell they would, unless there was a rift in the party and someone wanted to stand out as the saviour of the Right.

If [the PM loses the confidence motion], whomever received the confidence would then be appointed as the new prime minister.

It's so highly unlikely that in this situation Harper would lose a confidence motion that it's inconceivable anyone else would gain the confidence of the House. Even if they did, however, they would almost certainly be voted down on a confidence motion as soon as possible.

If [the PM maintained confidence], the Johnston would likely dissolve parliament and call an election, to let voters decide on the matter.

Then we go into another fraudulent election.

More importantly, these measures seem even more drastic than simply calling a Royal Commission in order to investigate the allegations of electoral fraud.

I concede that we should wait until Elections Canada has formally finished their own investigation. They've released no information on what they've found nor the specific allegations they've received. So we will wait until then. What concerns me, however, is that upon completing their investigation, they simply report it to Parliament. If it is indeed the Conservatives responsible, and it may not be, then they have the power to simply ignore the findings and carry on business as usual. Then what? Then the GG gets involved with dissolving the Parliament as you stated above?

[g_bambino]

The GG, like everyone else, must await the outcome of the investigation currently being done by the proper authorities.

Exactly. As I said earlier, there's nothing to rule out the possibility that the Governor General may have to act. Whether he does or not depends entirely on the findings of Elections Canada and other law enforcement bodies (should they be required).

[cybercoma]

The Governor General isn't one to launch investigations. That is the job of law enforcement, and in this case Elections Canada. They are currently doing an investigation. At this time, going beyond that would be nothing but a witch hunt. The GG, like everyone else, must await the outcome of the investigation currently being done by the proper authorities.

Fair enough.

[waldo]