Category: Columns Published on Tuesday, 07 August 2012 09:50 Written by Steven Bryant
It was reported by the CBC that on July 5th of this month, a chart was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by Elections Canada stating it had reviewed the 79 ballots in Etobicoke Centre that were thrown out by Ontario provincial court judge Thomas Lederer. Under a court order, the defeated Etobicoke Centre candidate liberal Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's lawyers were permitted to examine poll books and electors' lists as well as the ballots from 10 polls at Elections Canada's Ottawa office. Elections Canada stated that although 44 of the 79 voters were on the National Register of Electors, almost half of those 44 were from another riding. Conservative Ted Opitz was appealing the Ontario provincial court’s May 18th decision which tossed the May 2nd 2011 election results at the time the chart was submitted.
The fraud rate of 2 votes per poll in Etobicoke Centre is concerning and begs the question; did this fraud occur at 2 votes per poll in every swing riding nation wide? The margin of victory for Harper’s majority was less then 5000 votes, did taking away votes with “robocalls” and adding votes with “vote moving” effect the election results enough to give Harper his “carte blanche”?
Dangerous precedent set by set by Supreme Court of Canada
The decision to toss the results could set a dangerous precedent for Stephen Harper’s slim majority. If a precedent has been set by the Supreme Court, it would be very difficult for the Conservatives to argue in a court of law and if the rate holds, Mr. Harpers’ majority has only as long to live as it takes for each of the polls to be reviewed. At present there are no good reasons or explanations that have been presented to indicate this did not transpire in every swing riding.
For a court of law to accept a ballet as valid, at least the following three conditions must be met.
1. The voter must have a legal right to vote.
2. The voter must be in the correct location.
3. The voter must be conclusively identified as the person they are claiming to be.
Election rules state all voters must vote in their riding of ordinary residence defined in Section 8 of the elections act. In the event that a voter attempts to, or votes outside of their proper riding, they breach section 281(f).
No person shall, inside or outside Canada,
(f) knowingly make a false declaration in the statement of ordinary residence completed by him or her
This is summary conviction offense; it carries a 3 month jail term, a criminal record and/or a $1000 fine.
These sections are available in full on the Elections Canada’s website.
If at any time Elections Canada can not validate that all three conditions were met, the courts are left with no choice but to toss the ballot. Elections Canada owns all of the responsibility in verifying that these three conditions are met and they failed to do so in the federal election. When is the prime minister of Canada going to call for pubic inquiry into this fraud? It is a primary responsibility of the position of Prime Minister to ensure and protect Canadian Democracy.
The culpability of Mark Maynard
The problem with Elections Canada is Mark Maynard, he is either culpable of setting up the election intentionally so that this fraud could transpire, or he is culpable of the incompetence of setting up an election without sufficient fraud management tactics in place to stop it. Either way Mark Maynard, the head of Elections Canada is culpable for the demise of the federal electoral system.
The documents that were accepted by Elections Canada on election day to validate a riding of ordinary residence were weak at best, and no digital imaging or photocopies were taken of any of the supporting documentation presented, leaving no way of proving authenticity at a later date.
How it is possible that 2700 bogus ballots were discovered in the riding of Eglington Lawrence? The ballots were discovered 10 months after the election, by a team of investigators other the Elections Canada. Some ballots were not signed, and others had addresses of McDonald’s restaurants, UPS stores and banks.
Everyone understands that no one lives at McDonalds. Alarm bells should be ringing in the minds of Canadians when after more then a sufficient amount of time, Elections Canada had not even noticed the fraud, let alone discovered all the guilty parties and pushed for prosecution.
For every vote discovered there should be a criminal charge, 2700 votes, each at 3 months in jail and $1000, adds up to 675 years in jail time and 2.7 million dollars in fines. 14 months after the election not one person has been charged in connection with 2700 Eglington Lawrence ballots.
Elections Canada has also been reluctant to pursue the fraud allegations involving parts of the Del Mastro family regarding the $1050 for $1000 scheme allegedly used to circumvent the rules regarding campaign contributions. These allegations date back to the 2008 federal election, and Canadians would like to know if this scheme was used nation wide in the 2011 election. Why has Elections Canada not put out a nation wide bulletin asking for anyone else who might have participated in this scheme?
In an article published in Toronto Sun on July 27th Allan Kaufman, one of the lawyers representing a donor involved in the scheme was quoted as saying
“Elections Canada doesn’t seem to have any interest in pursuing this matter at all and we want to know why,” he said. “This is a matter of considerable public interest.”
“Elections Canada is capable of charging the little people on this file and not charging the people who organized it,” he said. “This is a scheme organized by her boss, by her employer, who put them up to it ... He paid them to participate in the scheme and he did it for the benefit of his cousin, who’s a member of Parliament.”
Is Mark Maynard now protecting the fraud that transpired by failing to investigate? Mark Maynard was commissioned to protect one of Canada’s most prized possessions, our democracy. He has failed miserably. Mark Maynard must now step down as the head of Elections Canada and accept his culpability in this affair?
How is it possible to have the ballets reviewed?
In order to restore democracy a full investigation must be completed. There are three ways in which the election could be properly investigated.
1. A public inquiry called by the Conservatives
2. A royal commission called by the Governor General
3. Section 118 of the elections act states that all ballots belong to Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
The Queen by all rights could summon for the ballots and have the results scrutinized to her satisfaction.
These answers will only come if Canadians demand them, calling for action will result in action, contacting members of parliament, the prime ministers office, the governor generals’ office or if one is so bold the Queen herself in large enough numbers will lead to an inquiry.
Included below are the contact details taken from the respective websites. It sends a message when the phone is ringing off the wall or an email bin is full, perhaps even more effective is the hand drawn letter.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
You can write to Her Majesty at the following address:
Her Majesty The Queen
London SW1A 1AA
The Governor General appreciates receiving comments, questions and suggestions from all Canadians.
Please select one of the contact methods below:
Mail Rideau Hall, 1 Sussex Drive, Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A1
The Prime Minister greatly values the thoughts and suggestions of Canadians. You may write, e-mail or fax his office at:
Mail: Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Calling, emailing, sending letters has power, the pen is still mightier then the sword.
Doing nothing will guarantee Canada’s demise as a democracy and a nation, doing something will help to restore it.
A detailed video and paper which further explains this form of fraud can be found at www.votemoving.com