Pick Your Friends Wisely

Clearly, Pierre Poilievre is making a calculated decision here in who and what he associates himself with.

H/t Theo Moudakis

About That Conservative Leadership Campaign

It would seem that the leading contender for the helm of the federal Conservatives, Pierre Poilievre, brings neither credit nor credibility to his party.

H/t de Adder

Bruce Arthur writes about the divisive tactics of this strange man, tactics that seem in many ways reminiscent of the nonsense that goes on in the U.S., where Joe Biden is blamed for inflation, ignoring the fact that it is a worldwide problem caused by a variety of external factors.

The Bank of Canada is a target thanks to the rise of inflation, which is largely due to the war in Ukraine and oil prices, house prices, China and COVID, and maybe some profiteering. People notice pocketbook economics.

In response to this thorny global financial challenge, Poilievre blames domestic spending and Bank bond-buying to support government deficit spending — he has always been against the pandemic financial supports to Canadians — and pitches … Bitcoin?

That would be the same Bitcoin that is down 50 per cent since November.   

His attacks on the Bank of Canada are similarly reckless. He wants the Bank to focus on keeping inflation as low as possible, while knowingly pushing lines of attack that could undermine its ability to do so. Expectations of inflation affect wage expectations, which affect prices, and if the market doesn’t think the Bank of Canada is serious about bringing down inflation, inflation doesn’t slow.

Maybe Poilievre truly doesn’t understand that. More likely, he just doesn’t care.

And his seemingly nonsensical advocacy for crytocurrencies has a sinister implication.

 Jessica Marin Davis is the president of Insight Threat Intelligence, a former senior strategist in Canadian intelligence, and the author of a book on international terrorist financing. She points out that of the money sent to the Ottawa convoy, the vast majority of the million or so via crowdfunding sites was frozen, leaving approximately $30,000. But over $830,000 came in via cryptocurrency.

Davis says, “it's super useful for money laundering, and it's super useful for other forms of illicit financing, and it's somewhat useful for terrorist financing. And I would say it's somewhat useful for other forms, like financing criminal mischief, as we saw in the convoy.”

Really, the simplest throughline to Poilievre’s bit is that if your goal is to hammer freedom to an audience that found wearing masks was an imposition, that vaccines were a conspiracy rather than a collective victory, and that are angry or confused by what’s happening with the world, then Bitcoin is just another aspirational buzzword that signifies the world doesn’t have to work the way you’re told it does. Poilievre has been pumping conspiratorial theories about gatekeepers for much of the pandemic; He’s still doing it. He’ll say just about anything, and that opens the door to all kinds of conspiracies, all kinds of anger, all kinds of extremism. 

Such is the sad state of politics today, powered by people who gleefully exploit and exacerbate societal divisions to feed their own power-seeking venality.

Definitely not the Canada I grew up in, and not the Canada I want to exist after I am gone.

 P.S. For a primer on the real nature and risks of crytocurrencies, click here.

 

Our Unhealthy State

I am not one of those who chortles when political parties fall into embarrassments or controversy; such events only serve as fodder for opposing parties eagerly driven to earn more political street cred. Those antics do not benefit democracy.

I speak first as an Ontario voter, despondent at the meagre fare on offer June 2, our election day: Doug Ford's Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP, or, as I like to call the leaders of the latter two, Tweedledum and Tweedle-dee.

So the quality of leadership does matter regardless of political affiliation. And that especially includes the federal Conservatives, whose leadership choice in the fall puts under pressure whatever is left of its soul. Not to mention the pressure it puts on our own democracy. 

Being of a certain vintage, I remember well Progressive Conservative leaders such as Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark, both profoundly decent men who would today be labelled as Red Tories., Indeed, and I am not ashamed to admit it, I voted Conservative when these two men led the party. It was a time when viable political alternatives existed, alternatives that always serve as a much-needed check on whatever party leads the government.

Unfortunately today, and here I state the obvious, rabid polarization has robbed us of measured choices, the result being that democracy is deeply wounded.

A letter-writer reflects on what the choice of Pierre Poilievre to lead the Conservative Party of Canada would mean for both the party and the country. Neither is an appealing scenario:

I hope that prospective voters in the upcoming Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leadership read the Justin Ling column on the convoy background, but it is probably in the wrong newspaper for them to see it.

A significant number are apparently preparing to vote for Pierre Poilievre, glad-handing supporter of the Convoy of Anger as possible Prime Minister. Of course, he is already running for Prime Minister, believing that the interim step of leading his party is a foregone conclusion.

Some CPC MPs are so blinded by hatred of Trudeau that they will support any movement that attaches his name and a profanity to a sign, even if some of the so-called leaders have advocated violence, spouted conspiracy nonsense, and carried with them a ridiculous MOU.

There are two possible outcomes from Poilievre becoming CPC leader. Perhaps the most likely is more years of a Liberal government that always promises more than it delivers. The more dire consequence would be a cabinet full of convoy supporters.

David Steele, Regina, Sask.

Those who are eager for the implosion of the Conservatives, or any other major party for that matter, need to consider the implications fully before so lustily cheering on political demise.

Leadership Under The Microscope

 

I need ammunition, not a ride - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky

With those six words, the Ukrainian President has put leadership under the microscope. His is the kind of courageous example that most people would long for in their politicians, but have likely long ago dismissed as a fond notion best confined to fantasy.

Juxtapose someone of great moral courage with a cruel dictator heedless of human life; one will inspire, and one will repel. And in the process you might just stir the world to at least a semblance of unity.

While everyone's attention is rightly rivetted by the terrible tragedy underway in Ukraine, one can also be heartened by the collective action much of the world is taking against the monstrous and calloused choices being made by Vladimir Putin. While not perfect by any means, the sanctions are the expression of strong condemnation of the war crimes underway. 

All of which has led to me thinking about the potential of leadership to unite a country. I would say that, especially in the early days of the pandemic, Justin Trudeau provided such leadership, appearing daily outside his cottage for updates, quarantining when necessary, and letting his hair and beard grow somewhat unruly, something many of us could relate to in those times. By these measures, he conveyed a message of shared pain and sacrifice. While obviously of an entirely different magnitude than that shown by Zelensky, it was what we needed at the time.

Then I think about the man who "wants to be your next prime minister," Pierre Poilievre. As described in The Breach, he is an ideologue who wants to replace social programs with a “tiny survival stipend”. It is a small part of his model of leadership that will inspire the mean-spirited and repel the fair-minded.

Althia Raj offers some thoughts on the options open for the Conservative Party as they ponder who should next lead them. Will they continue down the road to Trumpism or attempt to appeal to a wider part of the electorate?

The only declared candidate, Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre, is a polarizing figure with a “take no prisoners” attitude. He recently called Europe’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shockingly “weak,” embraced the so-called “Freedom Convoy,” and called COVID-19 public health measures a purposeful attempt by governments “to try and take away our freedom and give themselves more power.”

In the past, Poilievre has attacked the media, made derogatory comments about Indigenous peoples, left the door open to a niqab ban in the public service, and broken the election law. Elected at age 25, the career MP is a forceful opposition critic who has railed against elites, placed the blame for rising inflation and house prices at the feet of the Liberals, and promised more energy projects. His campaign launch through a social media video on Feb. 5 garnered more than seven million views on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. At least 26 Conservative caucus members have endorsed him.

While the vote-getting allure of the demagogue is tempting to many, others aren't so sure, seriously considering other potential candidate like Jean Charest and Patrick Brown, both moderates and from the progressive wing of the party. 

None of these choices inspire in the way that Zelensky does, but Poilivre's no-holds-barred strategy, which includes courting supporters of The People's Party, does offer some increasingly clear choices: 

In choosing a leader, the Conservatives must ask themselves what their winning formula will be —do they want to take votes from Bernier’s far-right party or from Justin Trudeau’s Liberals?

Such A Quandary

With such a fluid situation in Ottawa, what are opportunistic demagogues to do?

H/t Theo Moudakis

In The Fullness Of Hypocrisy

 

Those who read this blog with any regularity will know that I am a strong advocate of newspaper readership. Despite their flaws, mainstream media have something to offer that simply gleaning news from the internet lacks: reports and perspectives on a wide array of issues. Unlike the echo chamber that the pick-and-choose Web has become, they provide something sorely lacking in many people's perspectives: wide context with which to evaluate the world, and our place in it. Local, national and international reports and views have the potential to take us out of our limited bubble, rather than reinforce it as happens with those who attend the university of the internet.

With that is mind, I am taking the unusual step of reproducing a large portion of a column today, written by Althia Raj, as she addresses some of the fundamental and farcical hypocrisy evident in the Conservative Party of Canada and. to a lesser extent as asserted by Raj (although I don't really agree with her on this point), by Justin Trudeau that has emerged in the truckers' kidnapping of Ottawa:

Shockingly, the demonstrators have received the nearly incomprehensible blessing of Conservative MPs. Writing in the Toronto Sun Friday, Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge) said it an “honour and a joy” to walk among the protesters; she expressed pride that the trucking convoy was sparking mimics in other countries, and called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to dialogue with the protesters — whose organizers have called for the overthrow of his democratically elected government.

Last week, interim leader Candice Bergen (Portage-Lisgar), who has cheered the convoy since the beginning, saying their demands for freedom and respect were not too much to ask, also called on Trudeau to extend an olive branch to the protesters. Carleton MP and declared Conservative leadership contestant Pierre Poilievre also made a point of posing for pictures with the protesters, as have Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand-Norfolk) and several Saskatchewan MPs.

The Tory caucus is not united. But for every Pierre Paul-Hus, a Quebec MP and former lieutenant-colonel, who called for the streets be cleared and the occupation “controlled by radicals and anarchist groups” stopped, or a Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington), who tweeted that the increasing amount of bad-faith actors were not a legitimate protest, there is a Lianne Rood (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex) or Dean Allison (Niagara West) who “strongly disagree,” and see in Ottawa a peaceful assembly. Social media is full of Conservative MPs, such as Greg McLean (Calgary Centre) who decry “unbalanced media coverage,” choosing to focus on the protest’s “winter carnival” feeling rather than its lawlessness.

Who among us believes that if the truck convoy occupiers were anti-pipeline advocates, bringing a joyful message of hope for a greener and cleaner future while urinating on the streets, and blocking these MPs’ constituents from going about their daily lives or sleeping at night, there wouldn’t be a very different message from the Tory caucus?

Back in 2020, during the Indigenous-led railway blockades, Poilievre seemed to be standing on principle when he said, on CBC News Network: “You have the right to swing your fist, but that freedom stops at the tip of another person’s nose. And right now, these blockaders are taking away the freedom of other people to move their goods and themselves where they want to go, and that is wrong.”

Now, we see the double standard.

Most concerning in all this is the noticeable lack of voices decrying the use of foreign money supporting this occupation — a fact the police chief mentioned Wednesday and was later confirmed by attorneys general in Florida, West Virginia and Louisiana.

In 2012, the Conservatives were hell-bent on stopping the foreign funding of charities. Joe Oliver, then natural resources minister, suggested American interests were funding “radicals” who were preventing Canada’s natural resources projects from going ahead.

As more than $10 million was amassed on the GoFundMe platform, and at least $1 million more collected through other avenues, where is the Conservative outrage about outside funding for the convoy? Whether or not you think some of those protesting are just fed-up Canadians — and many are — there is no denying some also share a desire to destabilize the state.

While Ottawa residents deplore the vacuum of policing, there is also a vacuum of leadership.

Trudeau, by referring to the anti-vax as a “small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” likely emboldened a movement and encouraged the vaccine-hesitant to join a community that felt aggrieved and misunderstood by the majority. He should be called upon to explain why he sent ministers to dialogue with pipeline protesters but won’t do the same for those on the Hill. Thus far, the prime minister has said strikingly little about the occupation on his office doorstep.

Similarly, Ontario Premier Doug Ford needs to explain just what he’s ready to do to bring order to Ottawa. Saying the city’s police force just needs to ask for help has proven to be insufficient.

All of this is good to know and good to keep in mind, as long as large numbers of people don't get distracted too much by the next viral internet meme or conspiracy theory. 

Some Comeuppance For The Minister of Democratic 'Reform'

The minister responsible for the Unfair Elections Act, Pierre Poilievre, has finally gotten a taste of his own medicine. In the following you will hear a telemarketer calling on behalf of his campaign being answered by 'Lenny,' a software program that manages to tie her up for about 11 minutes.

Lenny, in essence, picks up calls and answers them with pre-recorded audio clips from a doddering Australian man, sometimes keeping telemarketers on the phone for over 20 minutes.
The clips include non-sequiturs, complaints that he can’t hear the caller, and extended reflections about one of his daughter’s academic achievements. At one point he even chases away ducks.

You don't have to listen to the entire clip to make your day. Enjoy:

And Speaking of Government Cheerleaders

Yesterday, I wrote about chief Harper sycophant Pierre Poilivre's abuse of the taxpayer through his vanity productions promoting the greatness of Dear Leader under the pretext of disseminating information about government programs. A flurry of criticism of this contemptuous behaviour yielded no signs of contrition from the minister of Democratic Reform.

Second only to Poilievre in obsequiousness is Number Two Harper fan and apologist, Paul Callandra, whose shameful performances both inside and outside of the House of Commons should be required reading and viewing for all voters. Yesterday, with his usual stalwart partisanship, he tried to justify the regular theft of tax dollars for government vanity productions on Power and Politics.

Watch only until your gorge begins to rise:

UPDATED: The Abuse Never Ends

The abuse of the taxpayer by the Harper regime is shameless and relentless. That's the conclusion drawn by The Star's Tim Harper today, and it is abuse that is amply demonstrated in today's Globe.

First to Tim Harper:

The Conservatives have provided a national background Muzak of sloganeering and propaganda that aims to lull Canadians into a false sense that everything will be okay if you just vote for them.

They’re using your money to buy your vote.

The contempt for Canadians is egregious:

... this government has spent $750 million blanketing you in Tory blue.

It has advertised programs before they existed. It has appropriated “Strong. Proud. Free” as an advertising slogan, but its genesis is considered a state secret and cannot be revealed for 20 years because Conservatives have deemed the matter one of cabinet confidence.

It is spending $13.5 million to advertise its budget — not to inform, but to promote.

It uses your money for its own partisan videos, endangering Canadian soldiers in the process of burnishing the Stephen Harper image.

David McGuinty says there are 9,800 Economic Action Plan billboards in this country, costing $29 million.

“At its core, this kind of advertising undermines the rules of fair play in our democratic system,’’ he says.

“Canadians believe the government thinks they’re stupid.’’

How little the Harper regime regards the taxpayer is made even more graphic by a video that government toadie Pierre Poilievre produced at taxpayer expense:

Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre commissioned a team of public servants for overtime work on a Sunday to film him glad-handing constituents in promotion of the Conservative government’s benefits for families.

The ensuing taxpayer-funded video – and other recent ones like it – are prompting concern that the Conservatives have taken a new step in the use of public funds to produce “vanity videos.”

I have to warn you that the following video, made at a children’s clothing consignment event at a local hockey arena in Poilievre's riding, should only be watched by those who are strongly constituted:



And if that's not enough, I offer you a second video, with the same strong viewer advisory:



I can only hope that instead of being impressed by the 'largesse' of the Harper regime, people will far and wide discern its subtext, that we are regarded by our government as suckers easily manipulated by the very propaganda we are footing the bill for.

UPDATE: Not only is this government contemptuous of us, it is truculently unapologetic about its disdain. Click here to see the ugly truth.

For Those Who Value Democracy

After watching Pierre Polievre make the Sunday rounds extolling his government's achievements, it would be easy for the politically disengaged and ignorant to conclude that the Harper regime is the greatest thing since the proverbial sliced bread. By Polievre's account, his government has put more money into the pockets of 'hardworking Canadians' than any other in Canada's history. What's not to like about TFSAs (a leg up for both working and retired seniors, according to trickster Pierre), income-splitting and new pending budget measures for seniors. All is well with the world.

Except that it is not. Scratch beneath the surface of such self-serving rhetoric and you will find a profoundly anti-democratic regime with barely concealed contempt for those who hold differing views, that latter considered one of the most important elements of any society that deems itself healthy and dynamic. The regime has used every trick at its disposal to demonize those dissenting voices as it extols a consumer-driven politics meant to turn us into a people who embrace mediocrity and absence of bold vision.

Although I have written about it many times, the Harper-directed CRA witch hunts make for a good illustration of the profoundly intolerant and anti-democratic nature of the Harper regime.

Steven Zhou writes:

If a democratic system thrives on participation from a civil society free to express itself without state intervention, then Canadian democracy could use some help these days.

Citizens who band together into groups that push politicians to engage a problem should, in theory, be a vital aspect of democratic decision-making. Yet the Harper administration, in its infinite political wisdom, has devoted millions of taxpayer dollars via Canada Revenue Agency, formerly Revenue Canada, to, in effect, target groups that are critical of federal policies.

The statistics paint a damning picture:

The CRA launched a series of 60 audits in 2012, and, tellingly, the targeted organizations all seem to espouse views that don't fit so well with the Harper agenda.

These 'political-activity audits' have primarily targeted environmental groups, human rights organizations, and labour-backed think tanks like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Meanwhile, more conservative-minded groups like the Manning Foundation or the Fraser Institute have not faced such aggression from the CRA. Many of them have also, like their leftist counterparts, participated in 'political activities.'

And this pattern holds true for the CRA's latest target:

[T]he latest charity to be targeted in a significant way is the United Steelworkers' Humanity Fund, a labour-backed organization that has supported food banks and disaster relief initiatives for over 30 years.

It has donated about two per cent of its annual revenue to the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability (CNCA), an umbrella organization that advocates for more accountability in the Canadian mining sector, among other things.

This support for the CNCA, an organization that hasn't shied away from its political purposes, is apparently what the CRA is zeroing in on. The fund has often butted heads with the Harper administration over labour issues, and wants more oversight of Canadian mining practices abroad, which, according to its president Ken Neumann, is primarily why the CRA began auditing the group's finances last year.

The intended purposes of such audits, of course, are to provoke both fear and self-censorship:

Such audits can certainly disrupt an organization's day-to-day operations significantly, but this kind of trouble isn't the main reason why these intrusions are bad for Canadian democracy in the long run. Targeted organizations that are forced to go through the lengthy auditing process can, whether the government intends it or not, become examples of what not to say or do in the Harper era.

One can hardly blame other charities if they decide to interpret the current inquisitorial atmosphere as being politically motivated. This means that if they want to keep their charitable status, practicing a degree of self-censorship may end up being totally rational. This is an anti-democratic development almost by definition, and it hardly matters whether a particular agenda is behind it all, though the available evidence suggests that Revenue Canada's choices aren't exactly politically neutral.

Will such practices, profoundly inimical to democracy, be noted by average Canadians, or will their vision be blinded by budget baubles designed to cultivate the selfish part of their natures?

I don't know the answer, but I do fear it.

Past Hits Of A New Cabinet Minister

Lest we forget some of the past gems from newly appointed Minister for Employment and Social Development, Pierre Polievre:

John Doyle's Christmas Gift To All Of Us

One of the few bright spots on that erstwhile formidable newspaper, The Globe and Mail, is television columnist John Doyle. His trenchant wit and justifiable cynicism about showbiz, along with his capacity to point out shows worth watching, would almost make the paper worth its cost were it not for its abject subservience to its political masters.

A man who refuses to drink the corporate Kool Aid, Doyle maintains an independence that I suspect few are accorded at the Globe. In that spirit, his offers his Top Ten Most Irritating TV-Related Canadians for this year. I reproduce a few that may be of special interest to followers of politics:

Ezra Levant

A truly, truly outstanding year. His supremacy in irritating-ness is unmatched, a fact that must make him proud. His demented ranting about young Mr. Trudeau. An Ontario court ruling that he was guilty of libel and that he demonstrated a “reckless disregard for the truth.” And his bizarre attack on an Ontario school-board memo he alleged was some sort of anti-Canadian, pro-Muslim conspiracy. Still he smiles.

Pastor Mansbridge

Mansbridge should not have accepted money from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers for a speech. It was just a dumb thing to do. Inept and, as such, hugely irritating.

If I may make a personal aside here, Mansbridge should also not be doing the devil's work.

The people behind “A message from the Government of Canada”

Specifically, the ad titled Drug Prevention – Marijuana Use, in which over deeply ominous music, it was announced, “Did you know that marijuana is on average 300 to 400 per cent stronger than it was 30 years ago? And that smoking marijuana can seriously harm a teen’s developing brain?” Actually the science is limited and, actually, the commercial is political, not medical. Irritating to think we are taken as fools.

Pierre Poilievre

Anyone with the ridiculous job title minister of democratic reform, which sounds like something dreamed up in a satire of North Korea, should be a bit abashed. Poilievre spent the year as a finger-pointing, accusatory bully. Every time he appeared on TV he was outrageously choleric, instantly a ridiculous figure.

Our Glorious Leader (OGL)

The PM, the pianist and singer, whatever you want to call him, or Our Glorious Leader, announced himself to be in “a different headspace” in a year-end TV interview. We knew that.

Regarding the last illustrious name on the list, obviously much more could be said. But I guess there are even things that the redoubtable Mr. Doyle knows he cannot say.

Poilievre Declares War on "Radical Unions"

Posted by MoS, the Disaffected Lib:

Pierre Backpfeifengesicht Poilievre has declared Conservative war on Canada's "radical" unions and their electoral meddling. The Parliamentary Punk has sent out a letter asking for 5-dollar contributions to help the CPC fight back the union menace in the next general election.

Poilievre has singled out Sid Ryan and the Ontario Federation of Labour as the Tories' arch enemy. The beggar's bowl letter begins:


Friend,

I’ll be blunt – the stakes have never been higher.

We’re not just fighting Thomas Mulcair’s NDP and Justin Trudeau’s Liberals.

This time, we’re also fighting a radical union agenda.

,,,What does this mean? It means that they will spend millions of dollars attacking our Conservative government – and to reverse all the progress we’ve made together.

...Please chip in $5 and help us prepare to fight off the big union attacks. Everything we’ve fought for is at risk.

Setting The Record Straight

Is the oleaginous Pierre Poilivre really the best the Harper regime can do in its propaganda efforts?




h/t Press Progress

Less Than Meets The Eye

Were average citizens given to much political reflection, they would realize that from start to finish, the 'Fair' Elections Act has been almost exclusively about both discouraging people from voting and suppressing the vote of those who do not fit the Conservative Party's target 'audience.' Even in light of yesterday's announced amendments, that remains the case.

While the Act has provoked a flurry of steady, relentless, critical coverage, both in mainstream and social media, to view yesterday's ostensible retreat as a real victory is to misread the situation badly. Two aspects of the bill will, I think, support my thesis.

First, and less contentious in the public's mind, is the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer is still fettered when it comes to encouraging people to vote. To be sure, the amendment is less Draconian than the Harper regime originally sought:

In the original draft, Bill C-23 restricted the CEO to communicating only where, when and how to vote, raising concerns of an attempt to muzzle the independent agency.

Elections Canada advertising would still be limited to the nuts and bolts of the voting process, but the agency could continue to fund third-party education campaigns with elementary and secondary school students.

In other words, the CEO is still limited to encouraging people who can't vote (elementary and most high school students) to vote. While that may or may not bolster future civic participation, it does nothing to prompt those of voting age to attend the polls.

Secondly, the issue that received the bulk of media criticism, vouching for those without an ID with an address, continues to be a problem.

First, a slight digression. As you will recall, Pierre Poilivre et al. have consistently ruled out the use of voter information cards as an acceptable proof of address. The argument, proven repeatedly to be specious, was that it contributed to voter fraud in past elections.

But think about it for a moment. As a voter, you present valid identification, such as your birth certificate or health card, and then attempt to use a voter information card to establish your address. The card is rejected because you could be perpetrating a fraud. How? Well, even though you have proven who you are, you might have moved into another riding, but you might have also gone to your old address, either broken into your old mailbox or house to retrieve the card, with the express purpose of deceiving Elections Canada.

Sound ridiculous? Of course it does.

But not to Mr. Poilivre and the rest of the cabal.

Like a dog that is regularly beaten by its cruel owner but is ever so grateful when that master/mistress gives it a few crumbs from the table, we are supposed to be ever so thankful for the following:

“The government will not support amendments to allow voting without a piece of identity,” Poilievre said in a press conference on Parliament Hill.

“(But) if someone’s ID does not have an address on it, they will have to sign a written oath of residence. Another voter with fully proven ID will need to co-sign attesting to that voter’s address.”

In other words, the voter is infantilized because he or she, lacking proof, not of identity but of address, must be in the company of an 'adult' who has the proper accreditation. Perhaps someone can explain to me how that does not just continue, in a slightly diluted form, the process of voter suppression of the young, the elderly or the homeless who may not be able to secure the proper accompaniment to the polls.

Watch the following video, as the oleaginous Minister of Democratic Reform tap dances around the truth of this bill. Unfortunately, his interlocutor, Rosie Barton, seems more interested in playing 'gotcha' than uncovering the truth about these very weak and very disappointing amendments. Start at the 10-minute mark:

Sometimes, Clicking Your Heels Does Not Send You To Kansas

This thoughtful letter explains why:

Re: Tory MP takes aim at elections watchdog, April 9

When it comes to fairness and objectivity, I have more faith in the former auditor general of Canada, Sheila Fraser, and in the current chief electoral officer, Marc Mayrand, than in Pierre Poilievre, the arrogant Conservative minister of state for democratic reform. Whenever I see or hear the minister denigrating an upstanding Canadian citizen who has had the courage to express a sincere concern about the government’s so-called Fair Elections Act, I can’t help imagining Poilievre clicking his heels together each time he meets with his authoritarian leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

We must not forget or forgive Harper for condoning and encouraging Poilievre’s outrageous partisan behaviour. The grassroots supporters of the Conservative party are allowing Harper to trample on the very fabric of our democracy. He is metaphorically walking over our flag with dirty boots. Harper has shed his professed Conservative-based principles and has shamelessly adopted a new doctrine: “Retain power at any cost.”

Lloyd Atkins, Vernon, B.C.

You Know Things Are Really Bad

...when even The Globe and Mail takes issue with its party of choice. In a blistering editorial entitled Harper Tories undermining democracy, to their own peril, the Globe attacks the 'Fair Elections Act and the attitude and deceit behind it, on a number of fronts. I hope you will take a few moments to read the entire piece. I will try to whet your appetite with the following excerpt:

...Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre this week told senators that Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has been so critical of the Fair Elections Act because “he wants more power, a bigger budget and less accountability.” Yes, that is surely the reason.

It cannot be because the bill’s change to voter-identification rules threatens to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Or that the bill introduces a campaign-spending loophole that eviscerates spending limits, and benefits the Conservative Party.

It could not be because the bill gives the winning party in each riding the power to name some of the officials who will oversee the next election.

It must not be the way the bill meddles with Elections Canada’s role in investigating or reporting on electoral irregularities.

It cannot be because, as a group of academics put it last month, the bill will “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.”

No, the criticism must derive from the fact that the man charged with running fair and free elections is as partial, biased and self-interested as Mr. Poilievre.

The universal consensus of the bill, outside of the Conservative party and its supporters?

A Powerful Indictment

Thanks to The Salamader for bringing the following letter by Jacob Kearey-Moreland to my attention. Published yesterday in The Orillia Packet and Times, it is a powerful indictment of the 'Fair' Elections Act and the mentality behind it. For anyone wishing to drop him a line, his contact information appears at the end of the letter:


The Orwellian-named Fair Elections Act, while on the surface appearing to disenfranchise Canadian non-Conservative voters and, in other ways, advancing the interests of its authors, seems to have as its underlying driving force an attempt to undermine democracy itself.

Canadian democracy is under attack and on the ropes. With declining voter turnout, ever-increasing concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Senate scandal, numerous unresolved cases of electoral fraud, most notably misleading robocalls and exceeded campaign spending limits, Canadians have lost faith in our public institutions. Canadians do not trust politicians. They no longer think the government works for them, but rather it works for those with money and power. A fractured opposition and an archaic voting method, first past the post, resulted in 56% of the seats for a party with 39% of the vote and only 61% turnout.

How can a party that received only 25% support of eligible voters unilaterally pass new election laws against reasoned opposition and act as if it will increase participation and confidence in elections? As a voter, I am losing confidence.

The Fair Elections Act could be the knockout punch for Canadian democracy. It is my hope this will not be the end, but rather a new beginning. I believe ordinary Canadians, despite repeated blows, can muster the strength and courage to stand back up once more.

As it pertains to strengthening Canadian elections and bettering confidence in electoral outcomes, the Conservative party has done nothing to address legitimate and court-document cases of electoral fraud. Rather, it has created a straw man and is now throwing the baby out and leaving the bathwater.

Without open, public consultations, Simcoe North Conservative MP Bruce Stanton has already declared his unwavering support for this bill. What does he know that we don’t? How is he so sure this bill will increase confidence in electoral outcomes and spur voter participation? Evidence and experience suggest the opposite.

Will he defend his minister’s personal attacks and character assassinations on honest, hard-working public officials and dismiss such disrespect for parliamentary democracy as “just politics?” Or is Stanton of the opinion the fundamentals of Canadian democracy do not deserve to be widely debated, in public, across the nation, before such extensive and controversial changes are to be made? Surely, with more time and input, Canadians could improve this legislation beyond the ability of its partisan authors. What could move Stanton?

The toxicity eroding our democratic institutions runs deep — much deeper than the Fair Elections Act. The Conservative party, which positions itself as anti-elite, anti-expert, anti-science and anti-government, uses scientifically tested language and expertly crafted policy, borrowed from American Republican think-tanks and politicians, to manufacture support from “the average Canadian” when, in reality, among those who influence the party are the elites who control the country’s largest banks and oil companies — not so average. They don’t care for fair elections or democracy. They care for long-term power, more money and less accountability. Ironically, that is what Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre accused Elections Canada of wanting.

It is time for voters of all political stripes to speak up to protect our most fundamental freedom — the right to vote in fair elections — our soldiers famously fought and died for. Conservative voters, especially, have a choice of honour to make and an opportunity for genuine leadership. Do you want to defend our system or your party?

Jacob Kearey-Moreland is a local resident and gardener. He can be contacted at jacobkeareymoreland@gmail.com.

On Harper's Destructive Government

I am feeling somewhat uninspired this morning, so for now I simply offer two reasonably good missives from Globe and Mail readers on Mr. Harper's demonstrably destructive impact on our democracy:

Re Tories On The Attack As Fair Elections Act Faces Critics (April 10): Deceive, deny, demonize: Pierre Poilievre’s contemptuous 3D Harper-government attitude to any critic of this legislation is without compare – and utterly contemptible.

John Partridge, Lakefield, Ont.

.........

Re New Book Describes Harper As Controlling, ‘Nixonian’ Leader (April 10): Democracy depends upon a general endorsement of principles, backed up by rules and regulations.

When a government has abandoned these principles – or failed to understand them or never had them in the first place – and operates only according to the letter of the law, then that government has damaged our parliamentary democracy, perhaps irrevocably as it now controls the rules.

Doug James, Calgary

An Eloquent Denunciation Of Harper's Approach To Government

Watch as Thomas Mulcair denounces quite calmly, incisively and eloquently the myriad problems both of the Fair Elections Act and the entire diseased approach to governance embraced by the Harper regime.

Justin Trudeau also offers his view.