The Fair Elections (A.K.A. Harper's Contempt For Democracy) Act: Star Readers and Creekside Weigh In

It is always heartening to awake on a Monday morning, peruse the newspaper, and receive confirmation that concerns over the Harper Fair Elections Act are not the exclusive concern of the blogosphere. That being said, I strongly recommend that you visit Alison at Creekside to read her analysis of this odious bill.

As well, savor these missives from Toronto Star readers:

Elections bill could disenfranchise thousands, Feb. 7

Typical of the Harper government’s obsession with control, they propose to create a new bureaucracy with the apparent sole purpose of bringing the currently independent investigative powers under the political influence of a government minister. Why else would you avoid the logical, and probably more cost effective, route of simply enhancing the existing powers of Elections Canada, the acknowledged “expert” in administering Canada’s election laws and regulations?
The ability to exert government (political) influence over enforcement and investigations of possible abuses of electoral law is the only apparent benefit of Stephen Harper’s approach.

Interesting also that, while they propose tougher rules to prevent abuse by individual voters, they promote “one law for you and another for the insiders” by providing new cover, out of the public view, for suspected abusers of the electoral system at the party and elected levels. This can only lead to a public perception that cover-ups of transgressions are likely as the insiders look after one another.

Leave it to Harper to subvert one more thing to his anti-democratic, dictatorial bent.

Terry Kushnier, Scarborough

Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre says he wants “everyday citizens in charge of democracy.” Really? The per-vote subsidy allowed all voters, regardless of wealth, to allocate a small amount of public funding to parties they supported. By scrapping that and increasing the individual donation limit by 25 per cent, the fraction of voters who direct public subsidies to political parties shrinks to about 1 to 2 per cent of all voters, with the biggest donors among them directing the biggest subsidies.

We’re on the wrong track. But before you blame a party or parties you don’t like as the source of the problem, recognize that all parties have an obvious conflict of interest with law-making on political funding.

We need an independent citizens’ assembly to tackle this. While it may not be clear what such a body might decide, it would certainly be more democratic and fair than the partisan-designed mess we have now.

Larry Gordon, Toronto

The “Fair Elections Act” recently tabled by the federal government is good, bad and sad. Good because it is not buried in a giant Omnibus Bill and contains many positive reforms. Bad because it appears that the chief electoral officer was not consulted on the details and, on the surface of it, Elections Canada will be lacking some powers to investigate. Sad because political parties have played fast and loose with our democratic rights to such an extent that our government feels compelled to call it a “Fair Elections Act.”

Bill Wensley, Cobourg

With Apologies, Another Post On Tim Hudak

I have to admit that I grow increasingly tired of and bored with young Tim Hudak, the boy who would be Ontario's next premier. Yet because his duplicitous tactics and rhetoric provide such a window into the sordid world of Conservative politics, sometimes I just hold my nose and plod on. But I promise to be brief.

In this morning's Star, Martin Regg Cohn examines Hudak's oft-repeated plan to bring 'workplace democracy' to Ontario, i.e., make union membership optional. Says Tim:

“We will change Ontario’s labour laws to give union members more flexibility and a greater voice. We will give all individuals the right to a secret ballot in certification votes. We will introduce paycheque protection so union members are not forced to pay fees towards political causes they don’t support.”

Such a touching concern for the sensibility of workers, to which he adds:

“Modernizing our labour laws is a part of that [bringing manufacturing jobs back to Ontario]. Makes it more attractive for jobs. Thatcher was instructive in that … they had rigid labour laws, they were deep in debt. She ended the closed shop, she modernized the labour laws.”

Assuming a rudimentary reasoning capacity just slightly beyond that of a toddler, one can fill in the details that young Tim withholds as to why making union-membership optional might, in theory, attract more jobs. No, it's not because a worker given the choice of union membership is a happier and more productive worker - without a union, he is a much cheaper worker, a reality at odds with Hudak's promise of one million good-paying jobs for Ontario.

What about the political machinations going on behind the scenes? In a party that has grave concerns about its leadership, those Progressive Conservatives who will likely run in the next election are concerned about how to best massage the message. The following, from The Hamilton Spectator, offers some insight into the sordid, morally-compromised world these people inhabit:

Internal memo shows concern over Hudak's 'right-to-work' plan

Alarm over Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak's controversial "right-to-work" policy is spreading among party activists, MPPs and increasingly skittish new candidates.

In an unusually candid memo obtained by The Toronto Star, 11 would-be MPPs express concern that Hudak's U.S.-style anti-union measures could hurt them in a provincial election expected as early as spring.

Echoing fears raised in a Jan. 22 conference call of 300 party stalwarts and earlier by MPP John O'Toole at last September's Tory convention, the candidates worry that radical labour reforms will be a tough sell to voters.

"Part of being smarter means we should recognize that campaign policies need to be flexible in order to allow for the type (of) precision needed to maximize regional support," says the draft memo, written by Timiskaming-Cochrane Tory hopeful Peter Politis with input from the 10 other Northern Ontario nominees.

"I'm sure we agree that messaging of policies and being prepared for the counter-message is the most important aspect of our campaign going forward," he writes.

Politis warns that "critical wedge issues" must be "messaged effectively in order to maximize the impact in our region while not hurting the impact of other PC seats in other regions."

"The 'right-to-work' policy also needs to be messaged effectively to maximize its impact in the south without sacrificing 11 seats in the North that can very well be the difference between a majority or minority government."

The candidates' memo is the latest sign of an internal PC schism over a pledge to eliminate the Rand Formula, which requires all workers in a unionized workplace to pay dues, regardless of whether they join the union.

Harking back to the party's heyday, the PC standard bearers urge Hudak to follow the centrist footsteps of former premier Bill Davis, who governed from 1971 until 1985 and remains popular to this day.

It is perhaps a testament to the character of the candidates that their concern over Tim's union-busting policy is prompted, not by principled objections but rather political expediency, i.e., "How can a union-busting promise be presented without damaging our chances of getting elected?"

Such is the stable from which the Progressive Conservatives draw.

True On Both Sides Of The Border

Substitute parliamentary democracy for republic and Bill Maher's words are a stinging indictment of apathetic Canadians.

Peace Of Mind: An Elusive State

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

- Dylan Thomas

I have now passed seven years of my 'official' retirement; it will be eight years this June since it actually began, given that I took a six-month leave before starting to draw my pension. According to all of the 'good life commercials,' I should be wiling away the rest of my days on the golf course, on some non-existent yacht, or fleeing harsh Canadian winters via the snowbird route.

Instead, I find myself increasingly restless and angry. Instead of disengaging from the concerns of this world, I find myself drawn into them more. While I would not have it any other way, it does make peace of mind somewhat elusive.

But perhaps, whether we are young, middle-aged, or old, peace of mind should not be our primary goal. Not in a world beset by so many problems, many of which promise to only grow much worse after we are gone from the scene.

In yesterday's post, I commented on the witch-hunt being conducted by the Harper regime against environmental groups that speak out about climate change and tarsands development. With the use of a trojan horse called Ethical Oil, an organization whose roots reach directly into Harper's inner office, and the weapon of the Canadian Revenue Agency, the regime seems bent on silencing those who do not embrace our headlong plunge into climatic chaos.

A story in today's Star provides additional information on this assault against freedom of speech, something we once placed a high value on:

Don’t talk about Alberta’s oilsands and how their development may aggravate climate change.

That’s the clear message from Ottawa to environmental charities being extensively audited by the Canada Revenue Agency to determine if they have crossed the line between public and political advocacy.

As many as 10 green charities are being audited by the CRA, while three say they are likely being investigated on complaints by Ethical Oil, a pro-Alberta oilsands, non-profit, non-governmental organization.

“Their (Ethical Oil) feeling is that by raising concern about climate change and the role of tarsands expansion . . . it is political activity,” said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, one of the three green groups that acknowledged it is being audited on the basis of complaints made by Ethical Oil.

Please read the entire story here. Weep, and then get angry. Get very angry.

On A Lighter Note, Even Pat Robertson Is Embarrassed

It is always a delight when even the crazed religious right begins to splinter. Watch the video below, a five-minute compilation of Bill Nye's recent 'debate' with creationist Ken Ham on evolution, followed by Pat Robertson's reaction to Ham.

We Stand On Guard Against Thee

If you are a member or supporter of the Harper regime, who is Thee? The list is long, but let's start with environmental organizations that have previously been labelled as terrorists.

The latest weapon in this war against dissenting voices, voices the Harper cabal has shown remarkably little tolerance for as they try to move us to some kind of post-democratic state, is the Canadian Revenue Agency. As reported by the CBC,

The Canada Revenue Agency is currently conducting extensive audits on some of Canada's most prominent environmental groups to determine if they comply with guidelines that restrict political advocacy, CBC News has learned.

If the CRA rules that the groups exceeded those limits, their charitable status could be revoked, which would effectively shut them down.

Here is a list of the targeted groups:

The David Suzuki Foundation

Tides Canada

West Coast Environmental Law

The Pembina Foundation

Environmental Defence

Equiterre

Ecology Action Centre

The groundwork for this assault was laid by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty during pre-budget consultations in December, when he warned charities to be very 'cautious', as he was considering tightening up the rule that permits 10% of charitable donations to be used for political activity or advocacy, something that has traditionally been interpreted to preclude partisan activities, which the aforementioned charities have been always very cautious about.

Since the government claims that CRA investigations are complaint-driven, their trojan horse of choice would appear to be a group known as Ethical Oil, whose website states its purpose as

Encouraging people, businesses and governments to choose Ethical Oil from Canada, its oilsands, and from other liberal democracies.

Indeed, the shadowy group, registered as a non-profit but looking like a shill for the oil industry, formally submitted complaints to the CRA about Tides Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation and Environmental Defence.

Is this just fair game? Not really, given the following curious fact:

The group was founded by Alykhan Velshi, who is currently the director of issues management in the Prime Minister's Office. Environmental groups say Ethical Oil is funded by the oil and gas industry to try to undermine their work

For a much more detailed discussion of this latest assault on dissent and its implications, you may wish to check out the following video from yesterday's Power and Politics:

Another Nail

As I have expressed in this blog previously, it is my sincere belief that the Harper cabal, indeed, the hard right in general, does not want us exercising our democratic rights, especially as they pertain to voting. The less participation there is, the easier it is for the true believers, aka, the base, to keep their party in power. Up to this point, however, that democratic discouragement has been engendered incrementally, through Harper's general contempt for Parliamentary democracy, disdain and attacks on those with a differing ideological bent, the muzzling of scientists, etc.

Now, however, for the first time we have a piece of legislation, ironically entitled the Fair Elections Act (and which, as of today, faces a time allocation motion limiting debate to three further days), that will make it more difficult to exercise our right to vote.

Promoted by that pusillanimous puppet Pierre Poilievre, the Minister for Democratic Reform, the bill, despite its name, requires strict new identification at the polls, prevents Elections Canada from trying to promote greater participation by reaching out to disaffected groups or investigating electoral fraud, and discourages the development of innovative ways to engage younger voters, among other things.

Astute political commentator Chantal Hebert has drawn the same conclusions about the bill:

At a time when most comparable jurisdictions are looking for ways to reverse a decline in turnout the legislation put forward on Tuesday nudges Canada in the opposite direction.

According to Elections Canada the 2011 turnout rate among voters aged 18 to 24 stood at a dismal 38.8 per cent. Across Canada some of the outreach campaigns that the bill would outlaw federally are specifically tailored to them.

...one does not need to read between the lines of the bill to come to the conclusion that the Harper government is more inclined to see a higher voter turnout as a threat than as an ideal outcome.

Yet another nail in the coffin of our democracy, brought to you by the usual suspects.