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.

C'Mon, We've All Been Thinking It

And now, thanks to Michael de Adder, we've got a picture to go along with those thoughts:

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.

A Petition Worth Your Consideration

Don Aitken has started a petition on the Care2petition site calling on the government to stop politicizing Canada's Election Act.

Given the abuses inherent in the Fair Elections Act, about which I have written several times, I hope you will consider signing it.

They Tell Tales Designed To Frighten Children

They, of course, are all who comprise the Harper cabal, that conglomeration of feckless, ambitious and disloyal louts who, through their lies, distortions and propaganda, would frighten, confuse and bully the uninformed into surrendering much of what it means to be Canadian.

People will recall, for example, the infamous lie told by Maxime Bernier of the thousands of complaints his office had received about the long-form census and its intrusion into people's lives. A closer analysis suggested that three complaints had been filed.

But of course, ideologues never let logic supplant hysterical distortions, and the mandatory long-form was thus abandoned.

In more recent times there was the whopper told by Tory MP and lapdog, Brad Butt, who, in loyal service to his masters claimed, not once but twice, that he saw people root through garbage and recycling in apartment buildings, then pass on voter information cards to others to be used for wrongly casting ballots. Given such a cautionary tale, the provision in the Fair Elections Act to prohibit the use of vote identification cards and vouching was clearly a justified measure to prevent widescale voter fraud.

Except, of course, Butt later admitted to having 'misspoke' (Toryspeak for lied) and had never actually witnessed such egregious criminal activity. Happily (for him) the good representative of Mississauga-Streetsville escaped unsanctioned, thanks to the parliamentary cover provided by Mr. Harper and his fellow travellers.

But, as noted earlier on this blog, he did not escape the wrath of a Rick Mercer Rant.

The fact that falsehoods are an integral part of the Harper arsenal formed a very interesting piece by Susan Delacourt in this morning's Toronto Star. Entitled Veiled voting furor’s unlikely ending, Delacorut reminds us of the furor that ensued back in 2007 when

Elections Canada ruled that Muslim women were allowed to vote while wearing burkas or niqabs in Quebec byelections.

In perhaps one of the seminal moments when the body first came into the sights of the Prime Minister,

Harper publicly chided Elections Canada (not for the first or last time in his tortured relationship with the organization.) He said he was “very disappointed” with the ruling and presented its decision at odds with the will of Parliament.

Several days ensued of wild stories of masked marauders at the ballot box and what horrors could unfold if we gave the franchise to people who showed up to vote wearing hockey helmets or Darth Vader costumes.

To counter the attempt to whip up the hysteria and anti-Muslim racism so favoured by the regime,

... [Chief Electoral Officer Marc] Mayrand pointed out that Canada’s election law actually does allow people to vote without showing their faces — voting by proxy or by mail, for instance, as tens of thousands of voters have done the past few elections. Singling out one constituency for a show-your-face voting requirement, namely Muslim women, could be problematic in a pluralist nation.

He and various Muslim spokespersons also pointed out that there was no great surge in people showing up at the ballot box with their faces covered — and no demand for it, either. Muslim women had already been removing their veil to vote.

Thus, rationality, logic and empiricism ruled the day, and that particular Tory attempt at frightening the electorate faded away.

Never one to take defeat lightly or graciously, the Harper cabal, apparently converted to the old adage that revenge is a dish best served cold, has bided its time and, with the Fair Elections Act, will be able to both mete out retribution to Elections Canada and achieve its goal of voter suppression.

A shame we can't call in the United Nations to help protect us from this rogue regime.

Rick Mercer Denounces Tory MP Brad Butt's Lies

As usual, Rick Mercer offers an unsparing assessment of his target, in this instance Tory MP Brad Butt and his outright lie about being a witness to voter fraud. Thanks to the usual Conservative obstructionism, Mr. Butt escaped his lie unscathed.

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:

A Nice Compendium Of Recent Harper Offences Against Democracy

I am preparing to resume work on my flooring, so, in lieu of my own piece, I am posting a letter from the London Community News that offers some thoughts on the 'Fair' Elections Act and other Harper government misdeeds:

Dear editor,

Much noise has been made about what the Conservatives’ euphemistically call the “fair elections act” currently being tabled in the House of Commons. CBC personality Rick Mercer announced that if the bill passes then Canada would forfeit our title as one of the world’s greatest democracies.

Mercer’s televised rant focused on the aspect of the bill that makes it illegal for Elections Canada to encourage young people to get out and vote. Some other controversial aspects of the bill include raising the limits of election donations, eliminating the practice of vouching for people without proper identification at voting stations and allowing polling supervisors to be appointed by the riding’s incumbent candidate or the candidate’s party.

Perhaps even more concerning should be Canada’s Chief Elections Officer Mark Maryland’s response that the bill as an affront to democracy.

The fair elections act, however, is just the latest in a consistent series of attacks originating from Stephen Harper’s Conservative government against the concept of a rich, competitive Canadian democratic system.

One of the first policies implemented by Harper, when he won his majority government in 2011, was to remove a $2 per vote subsidy for political parties. Between this policy change, and raising election donation limits, Harper has made it much easier for money to corrupt Canada’s democratic process.

After all, a party’s election spending budget should reflect the number of their supporters, rather than the size of the pocket books of their constituency, right?

Interestingly, Conservatives won almost 54 percent of the seats in Parliament, a majority, with less than 40 percent of voting Canadians supporting their party.

Also interesting to note is that, of the five parties who hold seats in Parliament, the Conservatives are the only party opposed to reforming our democratic system so that our elected government better reflects the popular vote. All the other parties favour some sort of proportional representation system over the deeply flawed first-past-the-post system we currently use.

For those of us who do not support the most popular candidate in our ridings, showing up to the polls on Election Day is futile. Because of the first-past-the-post electoral system we have, and the elimination of the $2 per vote subsidy, voting for a losing candidate in a riding is essentially inconsequential.

Since it is meaningless to vote for a candidate who does not win, this makes it more difficult for smaller parties to gain enough momentum to break into the scene and compete.

A central tenet of Conservative ideology is that economic competition helps improve the services that businesses offer society and, in turn, free market systems help improve society in general. Imagine what would happen to the Canadian economy if it was not possible for new, smaller companies to compete against the status quo.

So, it should be clear to Conservatives their policies on democratic reform inhibit political competition and, as a result, discourage a strong culture of democracy in this country. Indeed, the robocall scandal, conducted by Conservative Party staffers, was an explicit and illegal effort to discourage non-Conservatives from showing up to the polls.

It should come as no surprise then that the Conservatives have introduced the fair elections act that prevents Elections Canada from encouraging key voting blocks from coming out to vote.

The seemingly endless list of infractions against our democratic infrastructure committed by the Harper Conservatives also includes: unprecedented omnibus bills and other strategies to discourage debate in the house and senate, silencing scientists and suppressing information, criminalizing masks at protests and spying on activists, and a meticulously whipped cabinet.

Some downplay these controversial tactics as a winning strategy implemented by one of the most talented and calculating political leaders ever to represent the right wing of the political spectrum.

However, undermining and weakening the democratic system is a threat to all members of Canadian society no matter what political values we hold. This steady assault on the democratic process makes it difficult for all Canadians to influence the future of this nation.

With only roughly 60 percent of eligible voters showing up to the polls during our federal elections, Canadian democracy is on life support.

Many Canadians openly admit to being ignorant or apathetic about Canadian politics. Some say they are too busy. Others say that there’s nothing we can do to change things for the better and so become complacent.

When we reflect on our sad state of affairs, we should keep in mind that our democratic rights would not exist if Canadian soldiers had not defeated fascism alongside our military allies during the Second World War.

Second World War veterans dodged bullets and bombs and sacrificed limbs and life to protect a free and open Canadian democratic system. Try telling a veteran you don’t have time or don’t see a solution to this erosion of Canadian democracy. If we allow politicians to degrade Canada’s democratic infrastructure, it is an insult to their sacrifice, and an act of self-destruction.

We must become engaged in the democratic process.

Dante Ryel, London Connect event organizer

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.

Ed Broadbent Addresses The "Fair' Elections Act

I write this blog for a number of reasons, the most important one being the hope that I might contribute a little something to the general body of knowledge on political and social issues. The progressive blogosphere seems especially well-informed, and I often find myself reading sources and commentary that would have otherwise escaped my attention. So in that sense, I write for my fellow-bloggers.

Another audience I always hope to reach consists of those who may have come upon my blog seredipitously; they may see a perspective that offers some food for thought, which in turn may lead some into additional avenues of inquiry. While that may sound like a somewhat grandiose aspiration, one lives in hope.

Finally, I find writing a blog cathartic. Rather than simply allowing passions, anger, frustration and outrage to roil about internally, writing is a way of trying to create something positive out of, let's face it, negative issues (politics, corporate depredations, exploitation, etc. ad nauseam).

I wrote the above preface because my topic today is Ed Broadbent's op-ed piece in today's Star, in which he offers a withering assessment of the 'Fair' Elections Act. While his critique breaks no new ground and his points are likely well-known to those of us well-acquainted with Herr Harper's tactics and world-view, I offer some of them here in the spirit of the above:

Broadbent begins with the following:

For many months the Conservative government has blatantly taken away by fiat the right to strike of union members within federal jurisdiction. They are now threatening to shut down environmental charities that are talking about climate change. And they are ramming through Parliament changes to the elections act that will almost certainly mean that many thousands of Canadians will not be able to vote.

Taken in the aggregate, these measures, he asserts, are an unprecedented attack on our fundamental rights, restricting as they do freedom of association, freedom of speech, and our right to vote.

Inspired by the tried and tested voter suppression tactics used by the Republicans to disenfranchise marginalized groups in the U.S., the new election law would make it harder for certain groups to vote. The law would end the ability to “vouch” for the bona fides of a neighbour, a tool that allowed 120,000 voters — disproportionately aboriginal, youth and seniors — to cast ballots in the last election.

Among the other measures in the Act that will limit, not expand, democratic participation:

- The Prohibition of Voter-identification Cards: Elections Canada had only in the last few years piloted the use of the cards to make it easier to cast a ballot at polling sites serving seniors’ residences, long-term care facilities, aboriginal reserves and on-campus student residences.

Clearly that kind of easy enfranchisement is anathema to the Harper cabal.

- Limiting Elections Canada's Outreach Program will prohibit it from encouraging people to vote. Gone would be its ability to support programs in our schools, like Student Vote’s mock elections, or the outreach work in aboriginal communities.

- Removing Elections Canada's Power to Investigate Electoral Crime will mean that things like robocall fraud will be be beyond its purview.

I hope you will take the opportunity to read Broadbent's entire piece, but I will leave you with two more of his observations:

It is fitting, then, that the new election law is being rammed through Parliament. Once more, Harper is using closure — a way to end debate early — to prevent people asking, for example, why school programs that teach kids how to vote are so bad. Why let MPs actually debate democracy when it’s not valuable enough to educate children about?

Having spent more than two decades in the House of Commons, I can think of no prime minister who has been so focused on undermining electoral participation and public debate.

I suspect few would dispute Ed Broadbent's analysis or his conclusions.

On Democracy And Political Leadership

I have a somewhat busy morning ahead, so for the time being I offer the following:

Is the answer to things like this,


this?

Re Manning Takes Aim at Tory Election Bill (March 3):

The Conservatives’ Fair Elections Act is anything but. Instead, it’s about ensuring they’ll form another majority in 2015. There’s only one realistic way to ensure that won’t happen: co-operation among the opposition parties.

Here’s a novel idea: We need leaders who will lead. Elizabeth May has already figured it out; Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair need to hold their noses and go for one-time-only co-operation. Kindergarten students understand the rules that ensure fair play/good outcomes for one and all. For Canada’s sake, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair need to take a lesson from the sandbox.

Debra Rudan, Meikle Turner, Kingston

Some Days A Reactionary Just Can't Catch A Break

At least if you are a reactionary in the Harper vein. First came the bad polling news showing increasing numbers of Canadians growing increasingly suspicious and weary of the relentless divide-and-conquer tactics of the so-called master tactician. Then came some stinging rebukes from that old icon of conservatism, Preston Manning, who, over the weekend, suggested that it is time for the Harper regime to start focusing on policy rather than politics, perhaps a veiled way of suggesting it might be time 'to try that sincerity thing.'

Even that once-trusted source of cabal strategy, Tom Flanagan, weighed in as he told an audience at the Manning Centre that the Conservatives are paying a price for the “perceived hyper-partisanship of the prime minister.”

Ah, but the abuse of the reactionary Harper mind-set continued beyond the confines of Manning's think-tank. In yesterday's Star, Haroon Siddiqui showed that he has Harper's number as well.

Entitled How Stephen Harper divides and conquers our many minorities, his piece begins with what many would agree is an accurate assessment of the chief failing of the prime minister:

Stephen Harper governs not so much for Canada as for his Conservative party. He used to do it by stealth. Now he does it openly.

He cites as evidence the following:

The Fair Elections Act, which will gut the power of the chief elections officer Marc Mayrand (who had taken the Tories to court for breaking election laws) and make it more difficult for voters to cast ballots but easier for political parties to raise money.

John Baird’s trip to the Ukraine, which excluded any opposition party members, thereby allowing the Harper regime to take full credit for its 'concern' over events there.

The government’s boycott of the opposition from the Aga Khan’s speech Friday at Massey Hall. As Haroon notes, even Chrystia Freeland, the riding's MP, was frozen out.

And so it goes on. All of this deeply repugnant partisanship is part of a well-established pattern — Harper’s “you are with us or against us” approach to governing; his hijacking of Canadian foreign policy to serve Conservative interests.

Increasing numbers of Canadians seem to be awakening to the truly odious nature of Harper's rule. This can only be seen as an encouraging sign of the possibility of regime change in the near future.

This Just In!

And it is very encouraging, in that it appears Canadians are beginning to wake up to the true nature of the Harper regime:

Nearly two-thirds of Canadians believe that the ruling Conservatives are settling political scores with their Fair Elections Act, a new poll has found.

You can read all about it here.

Last Night's At Issue Panel

The comments of guest panelist Althia Raj, from The Huffington Post, are worth the price of admission here as she declares, in no uncertain terms, that The Fair Elections Act is legislation aimed at voter suppression. In reaction, the attempt at stoicism by Peter Mansbridge, currently embroiled in his own controversy, is also noteworthy, in my view. The fun begins at about the 12:30 mark: