Andrew Prescott’s immunity deal is a strange development. The loyal party worker and born-again Christian had for two years categorically denied any knowledge of or involvement in the robocall affair. But why do innocent people need immunity deals? One of the people Prescott professed his innocence to was Michael Sona.
“I looked Andrew dead in the eyes outside church. He was in his car in the parking lot. I asked him if he knew anything. He said, ‘I don’t know anything.’ That’s why I defended him when I went on the CBC. I took him at his word.”
Sources say that just before the Calgary floods cancelled the CPC convention, Prescott had made the same claim to a friend — that he was innocent of any involvement in the robocalls. At the time of that conversation, Prescott was angry because the party would not give him credentials as a blogger as they had at previous conventions.
Andrew Prescott’s information fingers the already charged Michael Sona, and the exiled Ken Morgan who is living in Kuwait. Prosecutors will have to decide if he is telling them the truth, or if he was telling me the truth when he told me in an email conversation he’d asked me to share on my blog last year:
Feel free to think whatever you may… however, know that pretty much every point you touched on in your e-mail is wildly incorrect. Specifically, your assumption that I know anything about whatever happened on a local OR national scale.
You are wrong. Period.
That’s an odd person to give immunity to.
.@ChristianConsrv You told the whole country for 2 years you knew absolutely NOTHING about #robocon. Don't you think people are sad w you?!— Pierre Poutinievre (@PrrePoutinievre) April 04, 2014
I’m very disappointed with the proposed Fair Elections Act. I agree with experts like the CEO who says Canadians will be disenfranchised if your plans to change ID requirements go ahead. Having assisted with past elections, I think your bill is awful, and will have mostly the opposite effect claimed by its Orwellian title. Your party’s refusal to include Green Party and independent voices at committee betray your efforts to create an unfair Elections Act, lacking broad consultations with most voting Canadians.
My MP’s office already responded; Mr. Poilievre hasn’t yet.
Dear Mr. Klein,
Thank you for providing me with a copy of your email addressed to Pierre Poilievre. I appreciate knowing of your action in this regard.
The Conservatives are trying to ram C-23 through the House with limited debate and limited committee study. They have used time allocation to kill debate at Second Reading, and are now trying to block the committee from hearing from Canadians about a bill that will affect their ability to vote freely and fairly. C-23 is nothing more than a smokescreen to gut Elections Canada, and prevent the Commissioner of Elections from investigating any further breaches of the Elections Act by the Conservatives.
The right to vote freely and fairly is fundamental to the integrity of Canada’s electoral system. I agree, this bill must be defeated.
If the CPC was cooperating with the investigation, why did it take nearly three months for Hamilton to arrange an interview with Guelph campaign worker Andrew Prescott for lead investigator Al Mathews, and why did national campaign director Jenni Byrne advise Prescott not to talk to Mathews before she talked to a lawyer?
SATIRE: “Commissioner Yevs Cote told Postmedia’s Stephen McMaher, “It’s been really difficult for investigators to obtain evidence when the trail led to the United States, as we have no power there.””
REALITY: “[Pierre Poutine] created an email address for himself — email@example.com When EC investigators tried to get account information for that address, Google claimed that it was an American company that operated under American law and did not have to comply with the court order.” Continue reading →
It’s time for a federal election. They want to change fundamental Canadian rights, and oppose laws in our Constitution that they didn’t get a mandate for in their crooked 2011 stable victory.
A not-so-radical proposal: If the government wants to make major changes to the Supreme Court, the Senate, and how people are elected to the Commons, why not let the people decide?
“Normally, electoral reform is done with wide, multipartisan consent, simply because our democratic rights are so basic. (They are often why wars are fought, for instance.) But there’s been no wide consultation — much less consent — for what the Conservatives are planning.
Political-science professors, domestic and international , have joined the protest.”
It’s been time for an election since 2012 when we learned the governing party benefited from election fraud in 247 ridings.
I really have to disagree with Dr. Barnhart, who had the power to sign, or refuse to sign laws of Saskatchewan into effect while Lieutenant Governor, that he is a powerful person. Now his influence may be lessened, even to the point where Global TV won’t keep a promise to him, but he did get invited to to a prestigious lecture for the UofR too, didn’t he?
There’s a time to be modest, and a time to be real.
The Leader-Post can’t include this whole letter by Mr. Bray because it’s over 250 words, so here’s the full version.
Fair elections are the heart and soul of our hard won democracy. Anyone who dares to tamper with the fairness principle should suffer the wrath of the citizens. Not happening- so far.
That may be due to the sneaky attempt to ram through the Fair Elections Act without attracting much notice. 70 weeks behind schedule, then wait for the distractions of the budget and Olympics to ram this Act through 2nd reading in just 4 days. How about public hearings across Canada so that we can understand the ramifications? Nope. Every Conservative M.P. obediently voted against public hearings. And this Act has escaped public notice-so far. A recent survey found that only 20% were very or fairly familiar with the bill. 38% had not heard of it at all.
Why all this sneaking in under the radar? Consider that last election 9,435,000 eligibles did not vote. Only 24% of eligible voters voted Conservative. Only about 6500 crucial votes in close ridings gave Mr. Harper his majority. If you can suppress the vote of those who are not likely to vote for you and make it even harder to investigate and report on any election “irregularities”, you tilt the scale in your favour in a close election. That is what this Act is about.
Even Conservative icon Preston Manning says that Conservatives should be strengthening, not weakening, the powers of Elections Canada. He says the greatest challenge to our electoral system is declining voter turnout. I agree.
What nasty business is in this Act and what is left out?
The role of the Chief Electoral Officer – who reports to Parliament-has been gutted to one of only the who when and how of an election. He cannot say if fraud has occurred. No more outreach programs to encourage youth, First Nations and the poor to vote. No more programs in schools to teach students about the importance of voting. No more research, no surveys. Elections Canada still has no authority to compel political parties and riding associations to provide financial documentation to support financial returns.This bill will discourage people who do not tend to vote Conservative from voting.
The investigative branch has been moved from Elections Canada- under Parliament- to the Director of Public Prosecutions- under the government. The subject has to be notified when an investigation begins. No one can know that an investigation is happening unless the suspect allows it. It is less likely that electors will learn if an offence has occurred or that those involved are prosecuted. This infringes on the right of individual electors to seek a court order annulling the results of an election when fraud occurs. This depends on electors discovering the fraud in time to act, which this bill makes far less likely to occur. No problem for M.P.s who have been found in violation of the rules. They can continue to sit as M.P.s while they appeal the ruling in court- which can take years.There are still no requirement that suspects cooperate with investigations. They can- and do as in the still incomplete robocalls case- tell investigators to take a hike. Why not the power to compel testimony as the Competition Bureau has? Isn‘t election fraud more important?
Party spending limits are to be increased. Money spent on fundraising will now be exempt from campaign spending limits- to the Conservative advantage. The maximum donation limit has been increased- which happens to help the Conservatives- who by far have the donors who can and do give the maximum. There is no public oversight of spending by parties in an election. Candidates yes- parties no.
Election frauds are not happening as a result of individual voters actions. It is happening due to the actions of political parties with the Conservatives by far the most implicated. We had the in/out scheme in 2006, we have the robocalls scheme using the Conservative database- which should have really outraged them if innocent, but somehow did not, numerous cases of candidate overspending, taking illegal donations and asking for inappropriate donations.- with few meaningful penalties.
Canadians deserve a robust national debate. The fact the Harper regime is not allowing it tells us how fair the next election will be…