Conservative hypocrisy on election fraud

This past week has seen the unfolding of the robocall story, in which it is alleged that the Conservative Party of Canada or someone acting on the behalf of the Conservative Party paid for automated phone calls to be made on election day 2011 to mislead voters to incorrect polling stations. The calls claimed to be from Elections Canada.

The focus is on a riding in Guelph, but Edmonton's Boyle Street is in one of the ridings that has been mentioned in some of the articles. As previous readers of this blog know, Peter Goldring was running for the Conservatives in the riding, with a serious challenge from NDP Ray Martin. Goldring is currently sitting as an independent while the issue of his refusal to take a breathalyzer test is sorted out. He has entered a plea of Not Guilty, which seems odd given that he DID refuse the test. Perhaps he plans to challenge the law. A Conservative who wants to argue for less crime prevention? Definitely not the campaign platform he presented when he was running for office. Things must look different when you are the one charged.

For personal reasons, I do not want to believe that anyone associated with Goldring's campaign had any part in this current Conservative debacle. Unfortunately, Goldring's previous behaviour makes his involvement plausible. Our household was getting a lot of automated calls related to the election - but because we already knew who to vote for and where our polling station was, we just hung up on them without listening all the way through. I am now wishing I had paid more attention.

The misleading calls at the centre of the fraud - and they are illegal - are not a matter of speculation. Thousands of calls were made. Elections Canada received the complaints on election day, May 2. They know which company was responsible for issuing the calls (RackNine in Edmonton). The question of exactly WHO recorded the messages, paid for their distribution, and who knew about the tactic has not yet been settled.The disposable cell phone in Guelph had a phony name registered.

Why did it take more than nine months for the election fraud to be made public?

Let us not forget that we had the election after the Conservatives were found to be in contempt of Parliament. The Conservatives have a history of breaking the rules to suit themselves, and they justify it by saying the Liberals broke rules when they were in power. Yes - but the Conservatives ran on the promise that they would be more accountable. Instead, we have broken rules compounded by coverups and scapegoating.

From Stephen Harper's lies about the Cadman affair to Bev Oda's altering of documents to Peter Goldring's lies about the Boyle Renaissance, this is a party Canadians should be ashamed to support. Here's the kicker: those lies were all known before the election. It is not hard to see why the Conservatives might feel they would need a little illegal help to win their majority.

The issue boils down to this: someone broke the law to help the Conservatives win the election. That someone knew they were breaking the law and took precautions to conceal their identity. The Conservatives then won a majority of seats with a minority of popular vote. They have hurried to put in place legislation that the majority of Canadians do not want. The Harper Government, knowing the law was broken, seems to have done nothing about it until forced by exposure in the media. Even if the determination is that the party cannot be proven guilty for the calls, they are guilty for not taking action earlier.

Now we have a problem, and the solution lies with the rank-and-file Conservatives who supported the liars by voting for them. If they have any moral fibre left, they need to prove it. They must be the ones to take to the streets and demand byelections - even at the risk of losing their majority in the House of Commons. If they do not, then they are supporting corruption by their silence.

The Conservative government treated this as if it was merely a dispute between parties, trouble stirred up  by their opponents. So for nine months nothing was done. Now they are saying they really want to get to the bottom of this. Say what??? Then why did you do nothing about it when it was reported? Did you think everything would be fine as long as no-one could actually pin it on a Conservative?  How long do you think it will be before "Pierre Poutin" is revealed? Why are the media at the forefront of the investigation instead of the government?

I am aware that in talking about Conservative supporters who worked the election in one of the mentioned ridings I am talking about members of my own family. You will also notice that I am not espousing any other party - this is not about party affiliation. During the election I supported a candidate with a track record for honesty and intelligence over a candidate who had promoted hatred and lies - I made my choice based on the honour of the person, not the party. 

So let's get some honourable Conservatives working on this. Come clean. Call the byelections.

Bill C-30 and vikileaks

I have been reading with interest the opinion pieces in major Canadian newspapers regarding Bill C-30 and the vikileaks protest. Most commentators have been moderate, saying that MP Vic Toews should be censured for his behaviour but also saying they do not support the anonymous vikileaks source which distributed personal information related to Mr. Toews’ divorce. This is not the way we comport ourselves in Canada; we are civil, and we do not stoop to such base behaviour.

True. Not ordinarily. But all the protests, science and rational discourse in the world have not been able to sway the ideologues of the federal Conservatives from any of their bizarre schemes. Their legitimacy as a democratically elected government is based on a flawed system whereby a party with a substantial minority of votes can get a majority of seats. 

And on Thursday February 23, 2012, it was revealed that election day fraud was perpetrated last spring, and even if it was not the Conservatives (the news reports keep saying the company that perpetrated the fraud has ties to the Conservatives), the election results in the affected ridings are now in question.

If a party takes advantage of a flawed system and fraud to claim a majority and enact legislation that is contrary to the interests and wishes of the people it serves, then that government's "legitimacy" is questionable. Governments need to serve their constituents, not follow blindly their destructive ideologies and pretend they were elected to do so. By members of Parliament breaking the law or their own rules when it serves their own purposes, the Conservatives have modeled the behaviour deemed acceptable. 

On the topic of internet child pornography: recently there were arrests of 60 people in Ontario related to this. The police seemed to be able to conduct their investigation quite satisfactorily by the processes currently permitted by law. If the Conservatives believe child pornography is so rampant that it merits widespread surveillance and unlimited police powers, then maybe they should be spending more on prevention measures like increasing funding to mental health research and treatment programs. 

My concern over C-30 is complicated. I am one of the people leaning toward "If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?" But what we have seen over the past few years, with the G20 Summit and the Cadmin affair, now the possibility of large scale election fraud, and the behaviour of local Conservatives Jaffer and Goldring (see previous posts), is a disdain for the law. What I foresee is unwarranted search and seizure to justify passing C-30 - and in cases where the searches don't turn up anything, evidence will be planted. At least having to put your evidence or reasonable suspicions before a judge means there has to be SOMETHING already pointing to a breaking of the law BEFORE the police sieze the property, before it can be tampered with. As it stands, the bill provides this government with a great way to harass or frame anyone they want. I'm a law-and-order/social responsibility kind of person; sometimes that means I speak out against the things members of the government do. That makes me a target. So what would stop a politician from directing the police (and the G20 summit showed how closely they work together) to get my IP address and information, come to my house and take away my computer (which has confidential files related to my work duties) and plant false evidence? Nothing. As the bill is currently presented, it is my understanding they don’t even have to tell you why.

Fifteen years ago I had the experience of being inappropriately targeted by politicians who then didn't even have the decency to acknowledge my civil - even gentle - letters correcting the factual errors they made to the public about me and my work. Those politicians were Reform/Alliance and Conservative. They were completely willing to be judge and jury without any sort of fair hearing. No, I do not trust these people. They have proven that they are not trustworthy. To give these people more power is ill-advised.

How, then, do you stop a majority government that will not accept fact, reason, or logic and that labels anyone who stands up for principles of democracy and justice as enemies of the state or friends of pedophiles?

Vikileaks humiliated Toews, and it was wrong. But Toews needs to understand that an unwarranted search and seizure, without explanation or justification to the person whose property is confiscated, is also wrong. The consequences in terms of lost work, lingering damage to reputation, and the expenses of spurious court cases and investigations – these are far greater than Toews’ having his divorce documents made public. Toews was willing to put lots of Canadians through that process for no discernible reason, other than to populate the prisons the Conservatives want to build, promoting a culture of fear and violence. Since when have those been Canadian values? If what it took for Toews to wake up was a dose of his own medicine, and it worked...

Stephen Harper wants to change Canada (despite Canada working better than almost every other country in the world). He needs to be prepared for the result: Canadians might stop behaving with the civility that used to be our trademark, and the poetic justice is that the monster the Conservatives create will turn its sights on them.

Lies from Conservative MP Peter Goldring

MP Peter Goldring (Edmonton East) wants to be re-elected. He has been a member of the minority government of Stephen Harper – a government which has been criticised for not telling the truth to Parliament and, by extension, the people of Canada.

So perhaps the lies in Peter Goldring’s March 2011 constituency newsletter (#484, “Boyle Renaissance or Boyle Institution?” - pictured here) merely reflect the philosophy of his party.

I know politicians are not supposed to use the word “liar” in addressing each other in the House of Commons. It is considered un-Parliamentary. I am not a politician, and Peter Goldring’s lies in his newsletter are not protected by Parliamentary privilege because they were not made in the House of Commons. The actual facts were provided to me by request by the City of Edmonton.

LIE: Peter Goldring says the Boyle Renaissance project will have most of “a thousand more social subsidized units.”

TRUTH: A 150-suite apartment building and a 90-suite seniors’ residence, neither of them with ongoing subsidies. No shelters.

LIE: Peter Goldring says the Boyle Renaissance project will “move disadvantaged persons already integrated into the greater community throughout Edmonton into a ‘Boyle Institution’.”

TRUTH: Some of those units will be for people who were moved out of the closed York Hotel and Butte Apartments which were already on the site. The other units are to address the needs of the currently underhoused and the aging/disabled population. People already "integrated" into the greater community are not being moved.

LIE: Peter Goldring says the Boyle Renaissance project is largely funded by the federal government as “the single largest contributor to the Boyle ‘Renaissance’ development costs”

TRUTH:Not only is the federal government NOT a large contributor, but so far there is NO direct federal money at all AND requests for federal money have been DENIED.

He further suggests that

• non-profit sector operators will be making profit from rental top-ups. FALSE
• the City of Edmonton is giving away the land and tax breaks. FALSE

So what is the Boyle Renaissance really? It is a community renewal plan for a couple of blocks in downtown Edmonton. In three phases, the project replaces an aging community hall and under-used sports field, and rehabilitates empty lots and land currently occupied by a scrapyard. You can check it out by clicking here, or read on for a quick summary.

Partners in Phase 1 are the City of Edmonton, the Government of Alberta Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Edmonton YMCA, the Capital Region Housing Corporation and the Boyle Street Community League (BSCL). You don’t see "the Harper Government" in this list, right?

Phase 1 includes

1) a new Community Centre to replace the old hall, which was in disrepair and could not be easily or economically fixed. Do you see any mention of this community resource in Goldring’s letter? The flex space (useable as gym or major event space), community activity rooms, multipurpose rooms, and catering kitchen will serve the city at large as well as Boyle Street community. It will be operated by the BSCL under a 25-year lease (licence), and owned by the City of Edmonton. No federal money has been given for the community centre. This is a public facility, but it is unique in being operated by the community rather than through the city’s Community Services facilities department. This business model empowers the community and fosters pride in the facility.

2) Sharing the same building will be a 70-space day care run by the YMCA for anyone in the city of Edmonton who wishes to sign up their child. Is Goldring counting these kids as shelter units? The YMCA will also have a Family Resource Centre in this building, to serve families from anywhere in the city, including but not limited to Boyle Street, McCauley and downtown.

3) The other building in Phase 1 is a modest apartment building called the Welcome Village. Is this a shelter? No. The YMCA, in partnership with Capital Region Housing, is building 19 studio apartments, 61 regular one-bedroom suites, 15 additional one-bedroom suites which are fully accessible for the disabled, and 55 two-bedroom suites. That’s a total of 150 apartments, 70 of which are earmarked for families. This is not “a thousand more social shelter units” as Peter Goldring claims. The apartment building has no ongoing subsidy; it has to pay for itself like any other apartment.

4) 70 underground parking stalls under the community centre building, an enhanced streetscape on 104 Avenue, and parkland around the buildings. And the City of Edmonton, as a partner in the project, still owns the land – it is not being given to anyone.

So are those shelter units Golding is talking about in Phase 2? No. Phase 2 is a 90-suite assisted living facility for seniors, with a third of the suites wheelchair-friendly. The partners are Métis Capital Housing Corporation and Canadian Paraplegic Society, and the project is funded by the government of Alberta (46%), City of Edmonton (25%) and Métis Capital Housing Corporation (29%). Do you see the Harper Government listed as a funder here? No. But the main floor does plan, at this point, to have a full-service pharmacy, dental office and medical clinic, operated by Bigstone Cree Nation. The pharmacy is expected to be run by a pharmacy group or chain, and the medical and dental facilities to be tendered to private professionals. Bigstone Cree Nation Medical Transportation Services provides medical transportation to all of northern Alberta, and this building might become the base for their Edmonton dispatch services.

Phase 3 will be 50-60 units of market housing and the new site of the community garden, which has been in the neighbourhood for many years. Do you see any mention of these in Goldring’s newsletter? No. Do you see the Harper Government listed as a funder here? N0.

There will be NO city of Edmonton tax exemptions to organizations developing Phase II or III, but they may be eligible for other exemptions from other levels of government depending on their tax status (as charitable or non-profit organisation or First Nations). This would be true no matter where they build.

Goldring asks “Could it be the attraction (read profit) for some non-profit organizations of free building costs, free land, no taxes and full market rate rental income prospects after provincial top-up trumps enlightened community integration?”

Enlightened community integration is exactly what Boyle Renaissance is about. Goldring doesn’t mention that the Boyle Street community is also home to The Quarters to the south and another private development in the works to the north – both of which are market housing developments aiming to accommodate, in total, more than 20,000 people. He doesn't mention the exhaustive community consultations.

Open community meetings were held on the Boyle Renaissance by the Boyle Street Community League, the City of Edmonton, and consultants representing the Phase 1 owners. I have been in on a lot of those meetings as an interested member of the community living in full view of the site. The plan has had extensive community consultation which overwhelmingly supports it. The person who does not support it is our elected MP, whose agenda is unclear, although he has spoken glowingly about the subsidised Mayfair Village private development, which has about the same number of below-market units as Boyle Renaissance Phases 1 and 2 combined and received funding from the same public Cornerstones program! Which project do you think should be getting public money – the one where developers make profit and might ditch their altruism after taking the money (like Red Deer’s Monarch Place/Innovative Housing debacle - for the story on that one, click here), or the one which is operated for the community? Goldring seems to think tax dollars should go to the private developers.

Arithmetic might not be Goldring’s strong suit. He is, after all, part of a government that says it prides itself on fiscal responsibility but which has racked up a huge deficit. And area residents might remember Goldring’s arithmetic when his newsletter was about the riding boundary changes – he argued that the 5000 projected Railtown residents were not included in the committee’s calculations, and then he also did not include them in his own calculations of how he thought the boundaries should be changed. Well, here we are again. Goldring is making up the figures, ignoring the projected 20,000+ increase in Boyle Street’s population from market housing, and pretending that non-existent federal funding gives him the right to lie about the project and turn people against it.

(The project did apply for federal funding for a skating rink, but the request was turned down)

Goldring supporters might think that maybe he was genuinely mistaken and not deliberately lying; maybe he was operating on old information. Way back at the beginning of the Boyle Renaissance, the projected number of units (which included BOTH subsidised AND market rate units) was over 900. But that changed two years ago – and when Goldring continued to publish the wrong information in earlier newsletters, his staff was contacted and asked to correct it. I know, because I am one of the people who contacted them.

All these public and community meetings, plus updates in the local newspaper and readily available information from the City – right there on their website - if Peter Goldring’s facts are mistaken, it is NOT because the facts were not available to him.

I don’t want to re-elect a man who lies to his constituents and works against the community interests and consultation process. Why does he want constituents to call HIM? He has done nothing to support this project, his government has put no direct funding into this project – NONE, despite his claims – so it is frankly none of his business. Why does he make it his business? If his constituency newsletters have been any indication, it is because Goldring would rather not have community-based projects when the money could go to private developers like it has with Mayfair Village or Monarch Place.

When a politician supports private business over the community, he has lost sight of his mandate.