I Nominate Him For A Nobel Prize

The category? That's yet to be determined. Any suggestions?

Slip Slidin' Away

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination, the more you're slip sliding away
- Paul Simon

I know, by his public efforts to appear reasonably normal, that Stephen Harper is a Beatles' fan. Whether he has ever listened to or crooned any of Paul Simon's songs is less certain. Yet I couldn't help but think of Simon this morning as I read Lawrence Martin's latest piece in The Globe and Mail.

Entitled The Harper machine is in disarray, Martin reflects on the many obstacles that have emerged to obstruct what I presume is Dear Leader's destination, not only to win the next election but to become Canada's long-serving prime minister. (Put aside for the moment that he seems to have blighted our political landscape for far too long already.)

Like an aging tiger, Harper seems to be losing some of his truculence. As Martin notes,

Few expected this. The bet would have been that the Prime Minister would have gone to the wall to protect Dimitri Soudas, as he has many other loyalists after acts of folly.

But just four months after having been appointed, the Conservative Party’s executive director is out the door. He joins a lengthening list. In recent months, Stephen Harper has also lost his chief of staff, his finance minister and a Supreme Court nominee, plus several senators as a result of the expenses scandal.

Dimitri Soudas' dismissal, suggests Martin, may mark an act of Harper deference to the rank and file who are becoming increasingly restive chafing under their leader's storied iron grip on all facets of the operation. Why? Matin cites several reasons:

-His party has been trailing the Liberals in the polls.

-He presided over a scandal he claimed to know little about, but should have known a lot about.

-Rebellious caucus types have confronted him, demanding some freedom of speech.

-Former finance minister Jim Flaherty contradicted him on income-splitting, a major policy plank.

One could certainly add to this list considerably, but perhaps the most egregious example of trouble has to be the almost universal repugnance with which his current favourite puppet, Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre, is being met over the misnamed Fair Elections Act. I won't be surprised if loyalist Pierre is soon invited to sit in the party ejection seat as well.

Martin points out that similar problems of resistance and bickering have beset past prime ministers as they approach the 10-year mark, including Mulroney, Chretien and Trudeau, at which point it becomes a situation of fight or flight.

However unlikely, let us hope that Stephen Harper chooses the latter option.

Rick Mercer - One Of Our True Patriots

I love this guy. Watch the following video to see why:

Be Very Careful

If you see this man, be aware of the danger he poses to Canada's democracy. Take all necessary precautions to avoid direct contact:



H/t Operation Maple via trapdinawrpool

About Those 39 Pieces of I.D. Pierre Poilivre Keeps Talking About

H/t Canadians Rallying To Unseat Stephen Harper

To hear Pierre Poilievre speak, one might think that any Canadian who claims that the 'Fair' Elections Act could very well disenfranchise up to 500,000 Canadians in the next election is intellectually challenged. The ubiquitous Harper weasel, both in the House and on television, assures us that all the experts, both domestically and internationally, are dead wrong in all of their criticisms, since the bill will allow 39 pieces of I.D.* to be used at the ballot box, thus rendering vouching and voter information cards quite redundant.

But are his claims of our collective ignorance/stupidity/hysteria valid?

The CBC's Laura Payton did an investigation of the issue, with some very interesting results.

If you look at the list of I.D at the end of this post, you will see the problem. As Peyton points out, Canadians don't just prove their identity to cast a ballot: they have to prove where they live too.

I have placed an asterisk beside those pieces that do provide an address. One of the key problems with many of those forms of identification is that one would have had to have gone to the trouble of requesting such proof well ahead of an election (eg. First Nations attestation of residence, or such attestation as issued by a soup kitchen, shelter, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility); a second problem would be remembering to have it with you when going to the polls. How many would bother to line up a second time after returning to their residence to retrieve the required but forgotten piece?

But most people have a driver's licence, right? Says Payton:

... while Elections Canada says 85 per cent of Canadians have a driver's licence — based on the numbers they get from provincial licensing offices — that penetration drops in urban areas like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, where better public transit systems mean fewer people require cars to get around.

What about things like insurance policies (which you are far less likely to have if you are a renter) or bank statements? Those are fine, says Peyton,

Unless, that is, the documents are delivered by email. [Don't forget we are always being preached to about the environmental virtues of paperless billing.] A printed version of emailed documents won't suffice. Instead, voters would have to go to the bank or the hydro or insurance company — or dig through their paper files at home — to find an original copy. And they'll have to know that before they head to the polling station to cast a ballot on the advance polling day or election day.

Curious as well, isn't it, that a voter information card, which contains one's address, isn't accepted as one of the two proofs required? Does the government believe dark conspiracies are afoot not only to steal the cards, but also people's other pieces of identity as well?

Given all of the criticisms levelled against this bill, criticisms that Poilievre has facilely dismissed as without merit, there is only one conclusion, in my view, to be drawn. Given those who are most likely to be excluded from easy access to the polls (aboriginals, the poor, the homeless, renters, the 'urban elite,' the young and the very old), people who are less likely to vote for the Conservatives, the Fair Elections Act is, unquestionably, legislation aimed solely at achieving voter suppression.

*Driver's licence
Ontario health card
Provincial/territorial ID card in some provinces/territories
Canadian passport
Certificate of Canadian citizenship (citizenship card)
Birth certificate
Certificate of Indian status (status card)
Social insurance number card
Old age security card
Student ID card
Liquor ID card
Hospital/medical clinic card
Credit/debit card
Employee card
Public transportation card
Library card
Canadian Forces ID card
Veterans Affairs Canada health card
Canadian Blood Services/Héma-Québec card
CNIB ID card
Firearm possession and acquisition licence or possession only licence
Fishing, trapping or hunting licence
Outdoors or wildlife card/licence
Hospital bracelet worn by residents of long-term care facilities
Parolee ID card
*Utility bill (telephone, TV, PUC, hydro, gas or water)
*Bank/credit card statement
*Vehicle ownership/insurance
*Correspondence issued by a school, college or university
*Statement of government benefits (employment insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support or child tax benefit)
*Attestation of residence issued by the responsible authority of a First Nations band or reserve
Government cheque or cheque stub
*Pension plan statement of benefits, contributions or participation
*Residential lease/mortgage statement
*Income/property tax assessment notice
*Insurance policy
*Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
*One of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility: attestation of residence, letter of stay, admission form or statement of benefits

A Simple Truth - UPDATED

But one, of course, that our political overlords have no interest in considering:

Re: Polls expert fears Bill C-23 imperils voters' rights, March 26

The response from Minister Pierre Poilievre’s office that “the Fair Elections Act simply requires voters to demonstrate who they are and where they live” shows a lack of understanding of the situation that many Canadians (by some estimates about 120,000) in remote areas, seniors homes and some students find themselves in. Many of these people simply cannot prove on paper where they live.

To disenfranchise them by eliminating the vouching alternative is patently unfair and is contrary to the democratic principle that all citizens have a right to vote. This clause, along with the one that restricts the right of the Chief Electoral Officer to encourage Canadians to vote, should be removed from the Bill.

Bill Wensley, Cobourg



H/t The ChronicleHerald

On Tory Intractability And Contempt

Today's blog entry is really a video one, based on the testimony yesterday of Harry Neufeld, the elections expert and former B.C. Chief Electoral Officer whose report is being consistently misrepresented by Pierre Poilievre in his zeal to suppress the vote through the misnamed 'Fair' Elections Act. Perhaps one of the most disturbing points to emerge is Neufeld's estimation that, with the elimination of both vouching and the use of voter information cards as acceptable identification at the ballot box, up to 500,000 Canadians will be unable to vote in the next election.

I am posting four videos: the first two are quite brief, and the other two are longer, taken from yesterday's Power and Politics. What ties them together, what emerges so plainly for all to see, is the absolute contempt with which Mr. Poilievre, the official face of Tory intractability and disdain, treats all expert opinion.

It is a face all Canadians should keep in mind when they go to the polls in 2015.

In this final segment, you will notice that even the usually unflappable Evan Solomon gets increasingly frustrated by Poilieve's refusal to even entertain the possibility that his bill is flawed, despite the array of experts saying exactly that:

Opposition To The 'Fair' Elections Act Grows

As a supplement to Montreal Simon's post yesterday on Jean Pierre Kingsley's appearance before the committee hearings on the 'Fair' Elections Act, you might want to spare two minutes to watch this report from The National on his concerns:

As well, here is a report that shows growing public awareness and discontent about the Tories' voter suppression efforts:

Defending The Indefensible - A Tory Tactic

Giving a break to Pierre Poilivre, the most public, glib, oleaginous and wholly unconvincing face of the misnamed 'Fair' Elections Act, the Harper cabal tapped good Tory-soldier Paul Calandra to be their point man on Power and Politics to defend the act. There is little doubt in my mind that Calandra has a future in Harper's cabinet, should the unthinkable happen in the next election.

Watch the following video, if you are sufficiently strongly constituted, to get a taste of the servile service he regularly renders to his dark lord:

A Lesson In Language

With my flooring project continuing at a pace commensurate with my rudimentary skills, I will likely devote much of the day working on the second room, the first finally completed with only a few obvious mistakes that I think I can later conceal.

Therefore, in lieu of something of my own, I offer yet again another insightful commentary from yet another thoughtful Star reader. (They do seem to be an intelligent and perceptive group!) This one, from Toronto's J.A. McFarlane, is a very interesting meditation on the political use and abuse of language, something Orwell called the defense of the indefensible, and something the Conservatives, both federally and provincially, have proven themselves to be Machiavellian masters at:

Re: Assault on democracy: The minister’s secret, Editorial March 23

Ideologues of all stripes have long practiced the art of bending the language to their own purposes, and for some time now those on the right have been winning this war of words hands-down. At the very top of their newspeak hit parade is the word “reform.”

Its most commonly accepted meaning is to change incrementally for the better, to effect what most intelligent, fair-minded people on all sides would regard as an improvement. But the ideologues are using the word in its much more radical meaning of re-form, to tear something apart and completely remould it to suit their particular agenda. They have been mentally adding a hyphen without telling the rest of us.

Some misguided poor people voted for Mike Harris’ manipulative, demagogic Common Sense Revolution (its vague proposals could mean whatever you wanted them to mean) because he promised to “reform” the welfare system. Well, he in fact took a chain-saw to it immediately on taking power, cutting their payments by a stunning 25 per cent. His base brayed approval while kids went hungry. Some reform.

This otherwise cogent and welcome editorial falls into the Tories’ trap at one point by referring to their “democratic reform proposals.” Granted, there’s not much we can do about manipulative formal names, such as their Democratic Reform portfolio (using a qualifier like “so-called” would be too heavy handed, right?) so the proper practice of all of us, especially the media, should be to mention these formal names as seldom as possible. Surely we all have a democratic duty to resist this manipulation, to use more accurate, neutral terminology, such as “radical electoral-law changes.”

And don’t get me started on that other biggie in the right-wing lexicon, the word “fair.” In Tory newspeak it is used everywhere, a catch-all word that means simply “putting a thumb on the scales to benefit us, our backers and our base.”

The Fair Elections Act is really just blatant voter suppression, and it is anything but fair.

Nothing New Here

All who find change unsettling will be reassured by the following video from today's Question Period, the House's first day back after a two-week break. Nothing has changed. Tory arrogance and contempt for Canadians is in full display:

Why Do I Find This So Immensely Appealing?

No idea.

Election Bill Sends 'Very Poor Message' To Budding Democracies

So says Andrew Reynolds, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one of 18 professors from around the world who earlier this week signed an open letter about their concerns regarding the 'Fair Elections Act. Their letter came the week after an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper by 159 Canadian political science and law professors.

In the following video, the professor articulates his and his fellow-academics' grave concerns over the anti-democratic aspects of the act.

Something For Stephanie

In yesterday's post entitled The Warnings Are Everywhere, I wrote about how Canada is being critically scrutinized both domestically and internationally for the anti-democratic measures contained in the 'Fair' Elections Act. I drew heavily upon an open letter sent by an array of professors from countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and Ireland.

Stephanie left the following message:

I'd really like to read the open letter by international experts, but unfortunately, it's behind the Globe and Mail pay wall. I should not have to pay for the Globe to read this open letter, intended for me, a Canadian citizen. Any other links to it? Please?

Since I could not find any other source for the letter, and since Stephanie makes an excellent point that an open letter intended for Canadian citizens should not be restricted to those willing to go behind the Globe and Mail's paywall, I offer the letter here:

We, the undersigned, international scholars and political scientists, are concerned that Canada’s international reputation as one of the world’s guardians of democracy and human rights is threatened by passage of the proposed Fair Elections Act.

We believe that this Act would prove [to] be deeply damaging for electoral integrity within Canada, as well as providing an example which, if emulated elsewhere, may potentially harm international standards of electoral rights around the world.

In particular, the governing party in Canada has proposed a set of wide-ranging changes, which if enacted, would, we believe, undermine the integrity of the Canadian electoral process, diminish the effectiveness of Elections Canada, reduce voting rights, expand the role of money in politics, and foster partisan bias in election administration.

The bill seeks to rewrite many major laws and regulations governing elections in Canada. These major changes would reduce electoral integrity, as follows:

Elections Canada: The proposed Act significantly diminishes the effectiveness of Elections Canada, a non-partisan agency, in the fair administration of elections and the investigation of electoral infractions by:

· Severely limiting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to communicate with the public, thereby preventing the CEO from encouraging voting and civic participation, and publishing research reports

· Removing the enforcement arm of the agency, the Commissioner of Elections, from Elections Canada, and placing it in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), a government department

· Prohibiting the Commissioner from communicating with the public about the details of any investigation

· Preventing any details about the Commissioner’s investigations from being included in the DPP’s annual report on the Commissioner’s activities – a report that the DPP provides to the Attorney General (AG), and which the AG forwards to Parliament

· Failing to provide the Commissioner with the power to compel witness testimony (a significant obstacle in a recent investigation of electoral fraud)

Right to Vote: The proposed Act diminishes the ability of citizens to vote in elections by:

· Prohibiting the use of vouching to establish a citizen’s eligibility to vote

· Prohibiting the use of Voter Information Cards to establish a citizen’s identity or residency

The prohibition against vouching is ostensibly to reduce voter fraud yet there is no evidence, as affirmed by the Neufeld Report on Compliance Review, that vouching results in voter fraud. These changes to the voter eligibility rules will disproportionately impact seniors, students, the economically disadvantaged, and First Nations citizens, leading to an estimated disenfranchisement of over 120,000 citizens.

Money in Politics: The proposed Act expands the role of money in elections by:

· Exempting “fundraising expenses” from the spending limits for political parties, thereby creating a potential loophole and weakening enforcement

· Failing to require political parties to provide supporting documentation for their expenses, even though the parties are reimbursed over $30 million after every election

· Increasing the caps on individual donations from $1200 to $1500 per calendar year

· Increasing the caps on candidates’ contributions to their own campaigns from $1200 to $5000 per election for candidates and $25,000 per election for leadership contestants

· Creating a gap between the allowable campaign contributions of ordinary citizens and the contributions of candidates to their own campaigns, and thus increasing the influence of personal wealth in elections

Partisan Bias: The proposed Act fosters partisan bias and politicization by:

· Enabling the winning political party to recommend names for poll supervisors, thereby politicizing the electoral process and introducing the possibility of partisan bias

· By exempting “fundraising expenses” (communications with electors who have previously donated over $20 to a party) from “campaign spending,” creating a bias in favour of parties with longer lists of donors above this threshold – currently, the governing party

The substance of the Fair Elections Act raises significant concerns with respect to the future of electoral integrity in Canada. The process by which the proposed Act is being rushed into law in Parliament has also sparked considerable concern. The governing political party has used its majority power to cut off debate and discussion in an effort to enact the bill as soon as possible. By contrast, the conventional approach to reforming the electoral apparatus in Canada has always involved widespread consultation with Elections Canada, the opposition parties and the citizens at large, as well as with the international community.

In conclusion, we, the undersigned, ask that the proposed legislation should be revised so that contests in Canada continue to meet the highest international standards of electoral integrity.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Shaun Bowler, University of California, Riverside, US

Professor Brian Costar, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia

Professor Ivor Crewe, University College, Oxford, UK

Professor Jorgen Elklit, Aarhus University, Denmark

Professor David Farrell, University College, Dublin, Ireland

Professor Andrew Geddis, University of Otago, New Zealand

Professor Lisa Hill, University of Adelaide, Australia

Professor Ronald Inglehart, University of Michigan, US

Professor Judith Kelley, Duke University, US

Professor Alexander Keyssar, Harvard University, US

Dr. Ron Levy, Australian National University, Australia

Professor Richard Matland, University of Illinois, US

Professor Dan Meagher, Deakin University, Australia

Dr. Jenni Newton-Farrelly, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia

Professor Pippa Norris, Harvard and Sydney Universities, US/Australia

Professor Graeme Orr, University of Queensland, Australia

Professor Andrew Reynolds, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, US

Professor Ken Sherrill, Hunter College, City University of New York, US

Professor Daniel Tokaji, The Ohio State University, US

The Warnings Are Everywhere

Canada's reputation continues to erode, both at home and internationally.

I recently wrote a post about Canadian law professors who penned an open letter pleading with the government not to proceed with the 'Fair' Elections Act in its present form because it will seriously undermine our democracy.

Now, beyond our borders, the same fears are being expressed, but also with a warning of the negative impact the act could have on new and emerging democracies.

As reported in The Globe and Mail, another open letter, this one signed by 19 professors from universities in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and Ireland, issues the following warning:

“We believe that this Act would prove [to] be deeply damaging for electoral integrity within Canada, as well as providing an example which, if emulated elsewhere, may potentially harm international standards of electoral rights”.

One of the signatories, Pippa Scott, a Harvard lecturer conducting a six-year electoral project, says the bill would weaken Elections Canada – which she typically cites as a premier agency internationally and warns that voter suppression through the elimination of vouching mirrors what is happening in her own country:

“If the U.S. and Canada both start restricting voters’ capacities to express their role, then I think other countries which are far less democratic will easily take their message … It’s a great excuse. They’ll say, if the leading countries in the world aren’t doing this, why should we?”

The letter dismisses the allegations uttered by Harper puppet Pierre Poilivre about widespread voter fraud, echoing others who have said that such allegations have almost no foundation.

As well, concerns are raised about the role money will play in the electoral process, given the changes that would exempt fundraising from campaign limits, not requiring parties to document their expenses and “increasing the influence of personal wealth” by allowing people to donate more to their own campaigns.

In addition, what the professors describe as "party bias" will undermine the electoral process by allowing parties to recommend poll supervisors, among other changes.

The warnings are everywhere. They demand to be heeded. Let us all hope that the long winter of Canadian apathy is coming to an end.

Rick Mercer Wipes Up With Pierre Poilivre

Rick Mercer does his usual excellent job in putting the smug and arrogant in their places:

Each Day Seems To Bring A Fresh Outrage

I am someone who believes people should never be too happy or contented. Such states breed a complacency that can lead to an indifference, if not downright disengagement, from the pressing issues that citizenship demands. That being said, however, there are days when I almost wish that I could be blithely detached.

As many who read this will likely attest, being a Canadian with a government that betrays us in so many ways is at times very difficult to accept and endure.

Where to start in discussing those betrayals? Since this post would never end if I were to enumerate all of them, I shall deal with only a few of the most recent ones.



There is, of course, the Fair Elections Act, about which I have written numerous times. Despite ever increasing awareness of the real threats it poses to democratic participation and the overall health of our system, and despite increasing numbers of prominent Canadians speaking out against it, the Harper regime, through one of its favorite puppets, the contemptible and oleaginous Minister of State for Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre, shows ongoing contempt for all who oppose it.

And probably the most egregious Tory contempt is reserved for the people, given the regime's refusal to hold cross-country hearing on the bill.



Then there is the arrant hypocrisy of the Harper regime.



Harper blithely and steadfastly justifies his uncritical and unwavering support for Israel by calling it the Middle East’s only democracy, surrounded by autocratic and hateful regimes that wish it ill.

But what happens to this ostensibly high-minded commitment to democracy abroad when money is involved? It is revealed as a blatantly empty and hypocritical pose.

What else can explain the fact that Canada recently signed a $10 billion arms deal with one of the Middle East's most repressive regime, Saudi Arabia? As Humera Jabir Murtaza Hussain noted in his recent Toronto Star commentary, the sale is an affront to Ottawa’s alleged commitment to human rights in the Middle East.

In his visit to the region in January, Prime Minister Stephen Harper espoused the high-minded rhetoric that Canadian values of tolerance and human rights would underpin Canada’s Mideast policy. But this unprecedented $10-billion sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, a known human rights abuser, makes clear that these values hold no water when there is a profit to be made.

But it gets even worse, as Hussain notes:

Last year, a Canadian Press analysis found Bahrain, Algeria and Iraq to be new buyers of Canadian-made weapons with weapons exports to Pakistan increasing by 98 per cent, Mexico by 93 per cent, and Egypt by 83 per cent from 2011 to 2012.

So what happens to Canada's oft-declared commitment to human rights? Consigned to the rhetorical ashbin of politics, I guess. Or, as Walter Dorn, the chair of international affairs studies at the Canadian Forces College, put it:

"The danger is that the almighty dollar may become the predominant motivator in trade deals and therefore weapons are more easily shipped."



Then yesterday came news of Harper's latest salvo against the environment and climate change mitigation.



As reported in The Toronto Star, Environment Canada will see drastic reductions in its funding over the next three years.

While the Harper cabal claims that the reduction in funding from the current $1.01 billion in 2014-2015 to $698.8 million in 2016-2017 is largely attributable to temporary programs that could be extended, altered, or enhanced , two statistics pierce the litany of lies we have come to expect from this corrupt regime:

Environment Canada’s full-time equivalent positions will decrease by over 1000 from the current complement of 6,400 to 5,348 in 2016-17. Most alarming and telling is the fact that many of those cuts will come from Environment Canada's climate change division, where FTE positions will be reduced by about half, from the current 699 to 338 in 2016-17.

Said Halifax MP Megan Leslie, the opposition New Democrats’ environment critic,

“Knowing what the situation is with greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, one would think they got the numbers backwards. And that we would be ramping up rather than ramping down...That is a shocking decrease, it really is.”

Shocking, obscene, indefensible... there are many words that one could apply here, none of which seem adequate, especially given the fact that the Harper government has done little to reach its goal agreed upon under the Copenhagen Accord, of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

And of course, no measures have been imposed on the oil and gas sector, which is projected to contribute 200 megatonnes of GHG emissions in 2020 — almost a third of Canada’s target under the Copenhagen Accord.



How can a government be so out of tune with the needs and demands of both its own citizens and those of most of the world?

I suspect Harper has done a cost-benefit analysis and concluded that none of these measures, or the countless others his regime has thus far undertaken, however odious, evil and contemptuous in nature, will rouse Canadians from their comfortable torpor and impel them to go out into the streets en masse.

My biggest fear is that he is correct in his calculations.

Law Professors Are Not Impressed By The 'Fair' Elections Act

Yasmin Dawood is one of 160 professors from across Canada behind an open letter to the government asking for major revisions to the 'Fair' Elections Act. Yesterday, she appeared on Power and Politics. As you will see, Dawood regards the act's provisions as posing a grave threat to Canadian democracy:

UPDATED: David Christopherson Rebukes Disruptive Tory Tactics; Pierre Poilievre Reassures All

Although the Opposition had been guaranteed uninterrupted testimony from Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand on the 'Fair' Elections Act, they didn't get it.

David Christopherson, NDP MP from Hamilton Centre, offered this trenchant rebuke:




Meanwhile, on Power and Politics, Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilevre made it clear that Mayrand's testimony, in which he stated his objections to the Act and proffered suggestions for amendments, fell on deaf ears. His response to all of them was essentially, "Everything is fine. Marc Maynard is wrong. No need for amendments."


UPDATE: In the above clip, among other things, Evan Solomon tries to point out that that there is absolutely no proof of electoral fraud having occurred. Therefore, the disallowance of Voter Identification Cards and vouching as acceptable forms of identification at the ballot box is unwarranted. In typically oily manner, Pierre Poilivre insists that a report commissioned by Elections Canada to review the problem of non-compliance with the rules for casting ballots pointed to wide-scale fraud. The author of the report, Harry Neufeld, former chief electoral officer for British Columbia, says that Poilievre is misrepresenting his report. You can read his rebuttal here.

Rick Mercer On The 'Fair' Elections Act

With Rick on the job, there is always reason for hope: