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.

Climate Change: Lines Of Evidence Part 7

If you missed the previous parts, you can click here to view them:

Part 7: Natural Cycles

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence Parts 5 & 6

If you missed the previous segments, you can click here to see them.

Part 5: How Much Warming?



Part 6: Solar Influence

Few Escape The Bruce Carson Taint

Nigel Wright to Bruce Carson in 2011 as the latter conducted his allegedly illegal lobbying:

“I’ve heard a lot of good things about you. Feel free to give me a call at any time.

You can read all about it 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.

More And More Canadians Are Rejecting The Mores and M.O. Of The Harper Regime

At least these letters from Star readers suggest thus:

Pollster warns Tories their support is slipping, March 1

In addition to the concerns of university-educated male voters between the ages 45 and 64 identified in the article, there is another significant reason that this and many other demographics are deserting the Conservative party. It has to do with the values that have evolved to become associated with the party brand.
Whereas the demographic in question had hoped once that the Conservatives would herald economic prosperity based upon a broad new vision for Canada, what the Conservatives have delivered is a petty, mean-spirited, hyper-partisan, autocratic government bereft of any vision beyond the next election.

In the minds of many Canadians, the values that have become the hallmark of the Conservative party are lying, cheating, bullying, and hypocrisy. As the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words” and because of their actions as a government, these values have become identified as an integral part of the Conservative brand.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, many demographics, not just the 45 to 64 year old males in question, are beginning to realize that, as tolerant and respectful Canadians, they do not share these values.

Lyle Goodin, Bowmanville

Cairo, Bangkok, Caracas, Kiev ... such places may seem remote. But proximity to a Walmart or Pizza Hut is no reliable predictor of civil unrest or calm. I marvel, therefore, that North American and European “leaders” still appear oblivious to the simple fact that people the world over are tired of being stolen from and lied to.

Or maybe they aren’t. Maybe that’s why we are spied upon by our own governments, corporations can buy congressmen, and, here in Canada, Harper’s mob have destroyed the sovereignty of parliament and politicized every aspect of the federal bureaucracy.

As Thomas Walkom nicely points out, elected governments lose their legitimacy when they systematically undermine democratic principals.

Harper and his like may think they are manipulating their power cleverly, but in the end they are writing their own epitaph.

Randy Busbridge, Niagara-on-the-Lake

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence Parts 3 & 4

If you missed the first two parts, you can see them here.

Part 3: Greenhouse Gases




Part 4 : Increased Emissions