Conservative MP Brad Butt lies in The House

[The_Squid]

MP Brad Butt told a bold faced lie to support the argument to bolster the new elections bill.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-mp-retracted-voter-fraud-story-after-complaint-to-elections-canada/article17079771/

A Conservative MP’s retraction of a claim he witnessed voting fraud came after a formal complaint to Elections Canada.

Brad Butt, the MP for the riding of Mississauga–Streetsville, said on two occasions earlier this month – while speaking in support of his government’s proposed “Fair Elections Act” – that he had personally witnessed people collecting discarded voter ID cards with the aim of using them to vote illegally. On Monday, he stood up in the House of Commons to retract that, saying his initial statements were “not accurate” but offering few details.

------------------------------------------------------------------

“One of the things that I have seen is I’ve seen on mail delivery day, when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in an apartment building, we often find that many of them are actually just discarded. They’re in the garbage can or in the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people coming in, picking up voter cards, going back to, I guess, whatever campaign of the candidate they support, and actually handing out those voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into a voting station with a friend of theirs that vouches for them with no ID.”

He repeated the claim roughly an hour later that day.

“I will relate to him something I have actually seen. On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. I have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Why are they doing that? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally. That is going to stop.”

MP Butt is on the committee looking at the bill.

Mr. Butt has never seen this happen. He deliberately misled The House and Canadians.

What should be done with MP Butt?

IMO, he needs to be removed from that committee and removed from caucus. But I don't think he will be. He should certainly be held in contempt by The Speaker, but I am not sure if there are any substantive consequences that could come out of that.

[Moonlight Graham]

Why did he retract the false statement? Was he caught? Or did he just own up on his own?

Personally I don't understand this BS about "Parliamentary Privilege". Wouldn't it be good for our democracy if Parliament were considered like a courtroom, where elected politicians were sworn under oath to tell the truth so that they were forced to the tell the truth, or at least do so more often? It would also prevent childish smearing of opposition parties based on lies during Question Period etc, I'm sure there would be some problems with this method, like politicians speaking less frequently for fear of being forced to tell the truth when they say lies outside of Parliament.

[On Guard for Thee]

Why did he retract the false statement? Was he caught? Or did he just own up on his own?

Personally I don't understand this BS about "Parliamentary Privilege". Wouldn't it be good for our democracy if Parliament were considered like a courtroom, where elected politicians were sworn under oath to tell the truth so that they were forced to the tell the truth, or at least do so more often? It would also prevent childish smearing of opposition parties based on lies during Question Period etc, I'm sure there would be some problems with this method, like politicians speaking less frequently for fear of being forced to tell the truth when they say lies outside of Parliament.

Nope, really bad idea. We don't need to provide even more scenarios for lawyers to suck the life blood out of people. Do that and you may as well close parliament. All we would hear in QP would be some jerk from TO standing up and saying, " my client refuses to answer on the grounds it may incriminate him" or some such BS. Let them lie their heads off as they refer to each other as "honorable" then let the people decide.

[Topaz]

I think with all changes going on, I wish a private members bill would come forward that creates a rule that NO ONE can tell a lie in the House. If they do, they should lose 3 voting rights.

[PIK]

For the life of me , how, people expect to get away with stupid stuff like this in this day and age. You can't fart without someone recording you.

[g_bambino]

I think with all changes going on, I wish a private members bill would come forward that creates a rule that NO ONE can tell a lie in the House.

So every statement any MP ever makes in the Commons has to be researched and fact checked by a parliamentary investigator? How much time and resource is that going to take up?

[ed.: +]

Edited February 27, 2014 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Personally I don't understand this BS about "Parliamentary Privilege". Wouldn't it be good for our democracy if Parliament were considered like a courtroom, where elected politicians were sworn under oath to tell the truth so that they were forced to the tell the truth, or at least do so more often?

Parliamentary privilege exists because parliament is considered supreme in our system of governance and therefore no outside rules or restrictions should apply within parliament(This is why parliament even has its own police/security/protective forces.) For the House of Commons, specifically, this also has to do with the maintenance of that body's independence from the Crown (similarly illustrated by the barring of the sovereign or any of his or her agents from that chamber (hence, the Throne Speech is always read in the Senate)). Parliament is self-regulating. The only more powerful regulator is the voting populace.

Swearing to tell the truth in a court doesn't force anyone to tell the truth in court. The whole point of a court proceeding is to tell who's lying and who's not. In parliament, debate is the way through which any lies told therein are uncovered. If it's an MP we're talking about, again, voters in his or her constituency can decide the MP's punishment for lying. Or, if the legislators feel the lie was or lies were severe enough, I believe the members can vote on what to do to reprimand the culprit.

[Wilber]

Why did he retract the false statement? Was he caught? Or did he just own up on his own?

Personally I don't understand this BS about "Parliamentary Privilege". Wouldn't it be good for our democracy if Parliament were considered like a courtroom, where elected politicians were sworn under oath to tell the truth so that they were forced to the tell the truth, or at least do so more often? It would also prevent childish smearing of opposition parties based on lies during Question Period etc, I'm sure there would be some problems with this method, like politicians speaking less frequently for fear of being forced to tell the truth when they say lies outside of Parliament.

He knew he was caught. He said he saw a crime being committed but he never reported it. When it finally sunk in that there would be an investigation into this alleged crime that he didn't report, he had two options, fess up or continue the lie outside the house which could put him in jail.

You would think someone on a parliamentary committee looking into election reform would be one of the first to report fraud to the authorities when they saw it. WOULDN'T YA!! Why are politicians such assholes?

Edited February 28, 2014 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Question. Can anything now coming from this committee be considered credible and why is Butt still on it?

[The_Squid]

Question. Can anything now coming from this committee be considered credible and why is Butt still on it?

Absolutely not. The MP on the committee has demonstrated that he is a liar who will make up fictional accounts of eye witnessing crimes to attempt to make a partisan point.

[ConcernedCitizen]

I totally agree, The_Squid. The committee has no credibility at all. The fact that they haven't kicked Butt out makes it even worse, because the members all obviously condone lying.

[Topaz]

Today, the House is having a debate on what MP Butt said. The Tories said, well, he made a mistake and he's come back and apologized but has he? What he said he wanted to CORRECT the record of what HE said. Why the change. It was brought out that someone watching his statement contacting EC and in return EC contact Butt about what he saw. Now, the other matter is Butt being in contempt of Parliament. He said in his statement not once, but twice and therefore there's no doubt he did it to help the Tories with the new fair election act bill. The Opposition parties are saying as always, the Tories are turning this as THEY are the victims and they do anything wrong. If a MP is going to lie, then be prepared for the punishment.

[Topaz]

This morning the House had a vote of debating about the Tory MP's lying or to go on to something else. Naturally, the Tories want to be as far from this and they can. The Speaker had found the MP in contempt,( second time for this party) and are trying very hard to change the channel. Many of the MP's are saying they are getting e-mails from their constituents about the new election act the Tories dreamed up and why this MP is still in the House after lying about what he saw.

[On Guard for Thee]

This morning the House had a vote of debating about the Tory MP's lying or to go on to something else. Naturally, the Tories want to be as far from this and they can. The Speaker had found the MP in contempt,( second time for this party) and are trying very hard to change the channel. Many of the MP's are saying they are getting e-mails from their constituents about the new election act the Tories dreamed up and why this MP is still in the House after lying about what he saw.

Actually I don't think that's exactly what hapenned. The speaker found enough evidence to send the issue to comittee which is where it sits now. But I do agree, Harper was found in contempt, at comittee level but before it got to a vote in the house an election was called due to a non confidence vote on the budget. What's interesting here is that this was the first time ever of a "contempt" finding and here we go with the legal arguments where there is no previous history to relate to. Some say it is criminal. some say not but it requires expulsion from the House. Pretty hard for the government to govern if the PM is not allowed in the house. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall through that process.