On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 The letter of attestation provision was already in the original bill. 9 major changes. Here's another: the CEO of EC keeps the same powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 What resistance? A bunch of paid parrots continually repeating the same left-wing talking points that have already been completely debunked. Sheila Fraser? When she calls this bill "an attack on democracy", yes, she is lying. You don't see her publicly railing against Quebec and Ontario who already don't allow vouching in provincial elections. how much does the CPC pay you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 how much does the CPC pay you? 90,000 dollars, but I can't seem to find the cancelled check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 how much does the CPC pay you? I'm paid nothing. Sheila Fraser, on the other hand, absolutely is being paid by Elections Canada to represent them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 9 major changes. Here's another: the CEO of EC keeps the same powers. All nine suggestions are very minor tweaks. Some of them actually strengthen the intent of the bill (like adding braille and pictures of the candidates to ballots). No one is suggesting that Elections Canada keep the same powers they have now. There are some differences of opinion as to how much their powers need to be pulled back, and how much of the same effect can be had by just having outside oversight. Maintaining communication between EC and their overseers is certainly the most important thing -- the original bill wasn't as clear on how that would work specifically. The actual Senate report is here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/rep/rep06apr14-e.htm 1. Specifically authorize communications between the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer. 2. Include a requirement that attestations of name and address should be given to those who seek it (the elderly, homeless, Aboriginal peoples, etc.). 3. Remove the provision on spending during an electoral period – the part that would exempt as an election expense the commercial value of services provided to a registered party for the purpose of soliciting monetary contributions only from individuals who have made at least one contribution of $20 or more to the registered party or to one of its registered associations, nomination contestants or candidates in the last five years. 4. Extend retention of automated calling service call records to three years, from the one year proposed in Clause 76 of the bill, and make the contracting calling service company the repository for these records. 5. Clarify Elections Canada’s new, reduced role that ends democracy promotion so it will not affect Elections Canada’s working relationship with Student Vote, a project of CIVIX, or other electoral educational programs in elementary and high schools. 6. Encourage Elections Canada to place photographs of candidates on ballots, to address concerns of people who have trouble reading. 7. Encourage Elections Canada to provide information to those with vision loss, such as information about the availability of braille ballots, and to conduct a pilot project in the use of specialized voting kiosks, described to the committee by the CNIB witness. 8. Encourage Elections Canada to consider allowing verified electronic correspondence as a means of identification at polling stations. 9. Both the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections should expressly be able to inform the public of problems they uncover in the electoral system. The biggest change is the one regarding exempting expenses to chase after new donations from previous donors. I strongly agree with that suggestion. Strict limits need to be enforced, but they also have to be very clearly written so that you don't have a difference of opinion as to what is and is not allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 16, 2014 Report Share Posted April 16, 2014 A number of them look pretty substantial to me as they directly oppose the intent of the original bill. Poilievre is having to hunker down because a lot of the resistance is coming from within their own ranks. There was a lady senator, who's name escapes me now, interviewed not long ago by CBC who expressed some deep concerns about this bill and said that they could tie it up for months if need be until it's properly amended. And she is one of the hand picked Harper faithful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Ok NDP MP for Toronto Danforth has weighed in on this and here's his opinion on it. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/15/senate_gives_government_cover_to_pass_antidemocratic_bill_tim_harper.html Now Craig is an constitutional lawyer, I have had a couple good debates with him and I respect his opinion. But I have disagreed with him in the past! Not sure if he's playing politics here, because he's on this big mission to venture off and slay the big bad senate. Take it for what it is. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 Just listened to the latest segment of Power and Politics. Poilievre still twisting the living daylights out of Neufeld's report, and still basing the need for the most contoversial parts of his bill on hypotheticals. And of course all with the "smarmy arrogance" as Mulcair coined it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 One report has said they the Tories are bringing in the money from this Act. I don't want to believe that the Tory supporters would let other Canadians not be allowed to vote because of vouching or EC not having more power to do its job on the robo calls scandals. Pierre said the head of EC wants more power and more money...well they did cut his budget and so lessening his power to do his job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 One report has said they the Tories are bringing in the money from this Act. I don't want to believe that the Tory supporters would let other Canadians not be allowed to vote because of vouching or EC not having more power to do its job on the robo calls scandals. Pierre said the head of EC wants more power and more money...well they did cut his budget and so lessening his power to do his job. It's definitely a dog whistle for CPC supporters. Doing more to stop voter fraud has been consistently raised as something that they really wanted to see for a very long time. It will shore up support (money and votes) among the core, absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 What voter fraud? The issue is how to stop candidate fraud. Who's side are you on anyway? I figure whoever isn't with the ruled must be with the rulers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Two sides of the same coin, equally important. I'm on the side of democracy and preventing fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Well sure but equally fraudulent?. I'm pretty sure you're on the side of the rulers myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 What "ruler"? The Queen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 You first - equally fraudulent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 You first - equally fraudulent? You're asking for a distinction that seldom has a difference. Individual voter fraud is just as likely to be candidate directed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 So we disenfranchise voters because of a hypothetical everyone except Poilievre says didn't happen. One can only assume that Pierre and the rest of his team know what side the bread is buttered on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 You're asking for a distinction that seldom has a difference. Individual voter fraud is just as likely to be candidate directed. I'm asking for the documented cases of what you're talking about that has prompted the need for all the fear and insecurity the Conservative's reformed election.act is supposed to prevent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 I'm asking for the documented cases of what you're talking about that has prompted the need for all the fear and insecurity the Conservative's reformed election.act is supposed to prevent. Don't hold your breath on that one is my advice. Noone has been able to come up with it yet, including the Conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 I'm asking for the documented cases of what you're talking about that has prompted the need for all the fear and insecurity the Conservative's reformed election.act is supposed to prevent. Again, and again you ask the same questions that have already been answered. Are you working on a remake of Groundhog Day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Again and again we get the same scripted answers, none with any form of verification. Ball's in Poilievre's court and he can't seem to serve up anything that clears even the lowest hanging net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Again, and again you ask the same questions that have already been answered. My particular questions have been asked in the context of your clear implication that candidates are directing voters to fraudulently pass them selves off as other people so as to illegally obtain an election victory? There are actually documented cases of Canadian politicians doing this in recent elections that you know about? I'l keep asking you this again and again. Are you working on a remake of Groundhog Day? I'm working on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Two sides of the same coin, equally important. I'm on the side of democracy and preventing fraud. If you were on the side of democracy, you would be very concerned about this bill like everyone else, including Tory senators, Tory MPs, Neufeld, the numerous electoral officers past and present that have raised concerns, and the majority of the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 If you were on the side of democracy, you would be very concerned about this bill like everyone else, including Tory senators, Tory MPs, Neufeld, the numerous electoral officers past and present that have raised concerns, and the majority of the public. The majority of the public is just repeating what the MSM told them, most of which is patently false. If what they THOUGHT was in the bill was true, then they'd have a reason to be concerned. Since it isn't, they don't. The Senators proposed some very minor changes, most of those just clarifications of what the bill already says. The things that have the opposition bent out of shape are the parts that are the most important, and absolutely must stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 If the Conservatives presented documented evidence of the fraud they've said is already happening maybe we'd have a reason to be concerned. So where is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.