A Conservative senator is pulling back after he seemed to suggest he knew of thousands and thousands of cases of voter fraud in Halifax and Dartmouth, N.S.

Senator Thomas McInnis was questioning Pierre Poilievre, minister of state for democratic reform, about the Conservatives' proposed changes to Canadian election law when he made the statement.

Part of his question focused on an element of the bill that would eliminate vouching, a process that lets a voter swear to their address if another voter vouches for them. Vouching is used when voters don't have identification that proves their address.

Experts, including former auditor general Sheila Fraser and groups representing seniors, students and aboriginal Canadians, say eliminating vouching will mean tens of thousands of people won't be able to cast ballots.

McInnis, who represents Nova Scotia, told Poilievre on Tuesday that vouching is a concern for him.

"I can tell you that vouching is a problem, but it's not just vouching. And I've witnessed it, personally on the streets of Halifax, and Dartmouth. And it is a problem. Many of these people first of all don't even know who the candidates are, haven't been involved — that doesn't absolve them from the right to vote, I realize that. I've seen them, actually, people take them right in and almost mark their ballot. That's how serious this is and it's thousands and thousands."

Cites Elections Canada

McInnis's statement was reminiscent of one by Conservative MP Brad Butt, who said he had seen people take voter information cards out of the garbage, but then retracted his statement. The Conservatives later killed an NDP attempt to haul Butt in front of a committee to question him further.

It was also similar to comments by Conservative MP Laurie Hawn, who is set to appear before MPs on the procedure and House affairs committee on Thursday to discuss his allegation he was offered bundles of voter information cards during the 2006 election.

A day after making voter fraud allegation, McInnis's office released a statement saying that he didn't claim to have seen any evidence of voter fraud, and that he had calculated an estimate based on numbers provided by Elections Canada.

"McInnis’ number of thousands and thousands comes from the chief electoral officer of Canada on March 6, 2014. When he stated before the House of Commons committee on procedures [sic] and House affairs that 120,000 voters used vouching in the last general election. This statement, coupled with the Neufled [sic] Report where it stated that there are irregularities in 25 per cent of cases where couching [sic] was used, thus translating into approximately 30,000 votes," the statement said. 

Marc Mayrand, the chief electoral officer of Canada, and Harry Neufeld, a consultant who studied problems in the 2011 federal election, both say there are administrative errors associated with vouching but no evidence of voter fraud.

Mayrand says 120,000 people relied on vouching in the last federal election and that they risk being disenfranchised if the proposed changes become law.

McInnis had agreed on Tuesday to do an interview with CBC News Network's Power & Politics on Wednesday, but wound up cancelling.

Like this article? Follow our Facebook page

Or follow us on Twitter


Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Prime Minister Stephen Harper, question period, Feb. 13

    "In terms of Sen. Wallin, I have looked at the numbers. Her travel costs are comparable to any parliamentarian travelling from that particular area of the country over that period of time. For instance, last year Sen. Wallin spent almost half of her time in the province she represents in the Senate. The costs are to travel to and from that province, as any similar parliamentarian would do."

  • Wallin speaking Wednesday in her own defence

    "By throwing a member of this Senate under the bus, finding her guilty without a fair hearing such as any other Canadian could expect — a right guaranteed us by the charter — to proceed without the evidence having been adduced and considered on which the charge in the motion is based, is a fundamental affront to Canadian democracy and makes a mockery of this chamber. This charade is supposedly about preserving the reputation of this place, but the real intent is to remove a perceived liability — namely, me."

  • Harper on Wallin's expenses, question period, Feb. 14

    "The senator and all other senators and members of the House are fully prepared and committed to have an examination of expenses to ensure that they are appropriate. That is the commitment the government has made in both chambers, a commitment we will keep."

  • Harper in question period on May 28 on when he learned that former chief of staff Nigel Wright personally wrote a $90,000 cheque to cover Sen. Mike Duffy's expenses

    "Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear on this question. This matter came to my attention two weeks ago, after speculation appeared in the media. On Wednesday, May 15, I was told about it. At that very moment, I demanded that my office ensure that the public was informed, and it was informed appropriately."

  • Duffy in the Senate on Oct. 22

    "I made one last effort. I said: 'I don't believe I owe anything, and besides which, I don't have $90,000.' 'Don't worry,' Nigel said. 'I'll write the cheque.'"

  • Harper in question period, May 28

    "As I have said repeatedly, my first knowledge of this was on the date and at the time indicated. Prior to that point in time, it was my understanding that Mr. Duffy had paid back his own expenses."

  • Harper in question period, May 28

    "If the leader of the NDP is suggesting I had any information to the contrary from Mr. Wright prior to this, that is completely false. I learned of this on May 15 and immediately made this information public, as I have said many times."

  • Harper in question period, June 4

    "Mr. Speaker, that information was already made public on Feb. 13, and I have been very clear about this. Mr. Duffy approached me after a caucus meeting to discuss this matter. From the beginning, my position has been clear: any inappropriate expenses should be refunded to taxpayers by the senators concerned."

  • Duffy in his Oct. 22 Senate speech

    "I've violated no laws, I've followed the rules."

  • NDP Leader Tom Mulcair in question period June 4

    "Mr. Speaker, why then did the Prime Minister, last week, deny instructing any members of his personnel to settle the Mike Duffy matter when he gave that order with that personnel present in the room at a caucus meeting in February of this year?"

  • Harper, in reply to Mulcair in question period June 4

    "Mr. Speaker, it was my view from the beginning that any inappropriate expenses by any senator should be repaid by the senator, not by somebody else. That was very clear. Those are the facts obviously before us. As I say, my statements on this matter have been very clear and very consistent."

  • Harper in question period June 5 explaining his meeting with Duffy

    "Mr. Duffy was seeking clarification on remarks I had made to this effect in caucus and I was adamant that any inappropriate expenses had to be reimbursed by him."

  • Duffy in the Senate Oct. 22

    "So after caucus on Feb. 13 of this year, I met the prime minister and Nigel Wright, just the three of us. I said that despite the smear in the papers, I had not broken the rules, but the prime minister wasn't interested in explanations or the truth. It's not about what you did; it's about the perception of what you did that has been created in the media."

  • Harper in question period Oct. 23, referring to Duffy's account of the Feb. 13 meeting

    "No, Mr. Speaker I absolutely did not say that."

  • Duffy to the Senate on Oct. 22

    "I argued: I'm just following the rules like all of the others. But it didn't work. I was ordered by the prime minister: Pay the money back, end of discussion. Nigel Wright was present throughout, just the three of us."

  • Harper in question period on June 5

    "I have made it very clear what my views were to all my staff and to our caucus. We expect inappropriate expenses to be reimbursed and I would expect they would be reimbursed by the person who incurred them. I would certainly not expect them to be reimbursed by somebody else."

  • Harper in question period on June 5

    "Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, Mr. Wright informed me of his personal cheque on May 15. This was an error in judgment. He indicated he did this because he believed that taxpayers should be reimbursed and he was prepared to ensure that happened, as in fact it did happen. However, obviously this was an error in judgment for many reasons that have already been outlined and for that reason, I accepted his resignation."

  • Harper at a news conference on July 6 in Calgary

    "I think if you read the affidavit it makes very clear that the decision to pay money to Mr. Duffy out of Mr Wright’s personal funds was made solely by Mr. Wright and was his responsibility. Obviously, had I known about this earlier I would never have allowed this to take place. When I answered questions about this in the House of Commons I answered questions to the best of my knowledge."