A Lament For The World

First he said that he would make America great again.
And the naive believed him.


Then he said he would create more jobs.
And the out of work cheered.


Then he said stop the Mexican immigrants.
And the bigoted flocked to join him.


Then he said he would relinquish control of his companies..
And his followers believed him.


Then he was elected by those who could not see.
And the world held its breath.


Then two million women world wide protested his policies.
And he ignored them and exaggerated his support..


Then he elevated millionaires and ideologues to cabinet positions.
And the rich and powerful cheered.


Then he spread lies calling it the 'alternative truth'.
And the press revealed the real truth.


Then he called the real truth 'fake news' and attacked the press.
And the world realized he was mentally unstable.


Then he banned immigration from Muslim countries.
And the bigoted racists emerged from hiding.


Then he trashed the media, retail giants and the courts.
And the Judges said that he was wrong.


Then the American people and the world began to see what had been wrought.
And visions of 1933 and 1945 came to those not blinded by his lies.


Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Harper History, Part 9 – Omnibus budget, Anti-terrorist bill, Election call.

Summer 2014 – Aug 2nd 2015

In 2014 Green Party leader and Saanich-Gulf Islands MP Elizabeth May described the dictatorship-style Harper PMO as a “$10-million-a-year partisan operation filled with ruthless, cutthroat psychopaths.” She added that the office was manned by people “employed for the purpose of harassing scientists, bullying MPs, and muzzling civil servants.”
It should be hard for anyone who has read through this series to disagree with that assessment for as she says “The staff at the PMO have no allegiance to anything other than getting the Conservative Party re-elected, it completely offends the principles of parliamentary democracy.”
In this the last part of the Harper History series we see little change in their suppression of parliamentary debate except perhaps to be even more controlling and secretive. In advance of the Oct 2015 election we see an ever increasing expenditure of taxpayers dollars promoting various measure proposed in yet another omnibus budget and continuous party ads degenerating opposition leader Trudeau. With the budget supposedly “balanced” though a series of bookkeeping fiddles the purse strings are suddenly opened just a few days ahead of the early election call. Throughout this entire time the senate spending scandal and the attempted cover up by Harper and the PMO was constantly in the news but no attempt will be made here to cover that fiasco.

July 2014

With the Harper Regime loosing a series of rulings in the Supreme Court of Canada from their plans for the senate to prostitution laws to his nomination to the court it should be no surprise that as well as Harpers direct attack upon Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin he now has set his minions out to attack the Supreme Court in general. It would seem that the Court making rulings that follow the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now a “problem” and that groups using the Charter to defend their rights when a new attack upon our democracy issues from the Con Oligarchy is somehow antidemocratic.

In an outburst that revealed the Conservatives true colours MP Larry Miller told the Post’s John Ivison of his growing dismay that the “courts are making laws.” “I’m all for rights and freedoms,” he said, “but the Charter complicates things.” The problem, as far as rights and freedoms are concerned, is that we have “complicated” them by writing them into law..............
“Pierre Trudeau,” he said, “did this willfully and deliberately, taking rights away from the majority to protect the minority.” “Why elect people and pay them to do something the courts are doing,” Miller grumbles.

Just to make it clear that this is not just Larry Miller spouting off but a directive from above, we have another report of the same talking points being floated from the other side of the country......

Also in July PEN Canada who represents more than 1,000 writers and supporters, including Canadian literary luminaries Margaret Atwood and Yann Martel, and presses for freedom of expression at home and abroad faced an audit. We keep being told that it’s just a bureaucratic coincidence to see so many critics of the government facing audits and revocation of their charitable status since these audits started in 2012 — from Amnesty International to Kitchener birdwatchers to the David Suzuki Foundation. But PEN Canada — an organization devoted to free expression, for heaven’s sake — the whole exercise became officially creepy.



On October the 22ns 2014 a lone gunman with no apparent ties to any terrorist organization entered the halls of parliament with malicious intent and was killed by the parliamentary security forces. This was quickly turned into a “terrorist attack” upon Canada by the Harper regime even before the gunman was fully identified.
"The objective of these attacks was to instil fear and panic in our country, as I said yesterday, Canadians will not be intimidated. Here we are, in our seats, in our chamber, in the very heart of our democracy." Stephen Harper in the House of Commons Thursday October 23^rd. This from the king of democratic destruction.
Also in October the Harper government introduced another omnibus budget bill. It brought forward the 458-page C-43 bill and said it intends to pass the legislation before the December break. It included substantial reductions in health transfers for provinces and measures to deny refugees heath care, although spending was announced for things like infrastructure or national defence it was all deferred in order to be able to announce a balanced budget before the election at which time suddenly the purse strings were loosened.


In November it was revealed that, even as various government departments reduced services and staffing levels, Public Accounts documents showed the Conservatives have held onto more than $7 billion in approved spending across a spectrum of departments. Since 2007-2008, the average amount that the government has underspent is 23 per cent of the allocated funds. Over the last three decades, the average was 2 per cent.


In December
“Stephen Harper's government is being called out for spending what the Liberals say is $548 million of taxpayers' money for partisan advertising - just prior to the 2015 election. A long ad campaign about a jobs plan that doesn't exist; feel-good ads about Canada's 150th anniversary - still two full years away; a two-month ad campaign ending this month, showcasing tax breaks that can't be accessed until March or April; and $9 million for ads denouncing Canada's wireless cellphone companies. “


In a scathing article former Conservative MP Mr Rathgeber points out that the Harper Regime continues to boast of programs that have not passed through the legislative process are are not in fact in place and does so with half truths and outright lies.

“It is shameful how a supposedly conservative government wastes tax dollars on blatant, self- serving, political advertising. These recent transgressions are in addition to the $5 Million Veterans Affairs is using to promote the laughable concept of how well Canada treats its veterans. Parliament amazingly voted an additional $21,400,000 Wednesday night for additional government advertising;” (Read the majority Con Regime voted themselves increased advertising budget)


In January The Harper regime introduced Bill C-51, the new Anti-Terrorism Act which was quickly denounced as creating a 'police state' and reducing oversight upon CISIS and doing little to actually combat domestic terrorism.
At a press briefing to introduce the bill reporters in Ottawa became surly quickly when it was discovered the government lock-up they attended on the proposed anti-terror legislation was light on information and heavy on restrictions.
A hint of how the government might handle some of its Bill C-51 critics at committee first came from Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney Tuesday. Leading testimony before the committee, he spoke out against members of the opposition and “so-called experts” who oppose the bill.
The “so-called” experts to which he referred include: former prime ministers, retired Supreme Court justices, eminent former politicians, national security legal academics and constitutional scholars and others.
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney told CTV’s Question Period that any oversight efforts beyond the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), which reports to Parliament on the operations of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), would be redundant.
With a few minor amendments, and having rejected 60 amendments from the Greens and dozens more for the other parties, the bill passed third reading on May 6 with the support of the Liberals with a final vote of 183-96. It later passed in the Senate on June 9 following a vote of 44-28 in favour.

Early in February 2015 Baird became the 21st senior Conservative MP to announce that they will not be seeking re-election during the 2015 federal election, scheduled for October 19. “Add in previous resignations, lost nomination bids and a death, and more than 30 Conservatives elected in Harper’s historic 2011 majority of 166 MPs are leaving or have left.”
Baird's departure from cabinet, along with the resignation of Jim Flaherty a month before his death last year, mean two of Harper's most powerful ministers will have left the prime minister's inner circle in less than a year. The election of a replacement MP was delayed until the October general election.


Also in Feb 2015 Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Fréchette accused the Conservative government of breaching its legal obligations to hand over information about the cost of Canada’s military mission in Iraq.
A PBO report said the Department of National Defence refused all requests for specific data on Operation Impact, the mission against Islamic State militants. “Several of these refusals appear to breach DND’s legal obligations under the Parliament of Canada Act,” the report states.......
The report also notes that the government has a history of reporting incremental costs of military missions that are significantly lower than the full costs. For instance, the report states that Operation Mobile, Canada’s most recent overseas mission in Libya, had full costs that were almost six times the reported incremental costs.



In March the rush to pass the Security bill continued with debate being restricted in both the House and in Committee despite the ever increasing objections to it from both the general public and legal and constitutional experts. The hearings clearly demonstrated how dysfunctional the committee process had become under the Harper Regime.
The Canadian Bar Association objects to the planned transformation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) into an agency that could actively disrupt terror plots. It argues the bill’s “vague and overly broad language” would capture legitimate activity, including environmental and aboriginal protests — and possibly put a chill on expressions of dissent. The SIRC committee's executive director, Michael Doucet, complained in this year's annual report that his staff had trouble getting relevant information from CSIS with it, on average, taking three years to investigate complaints against CSIS.
Late in February it was revealed that over a five-year period, Canada's national police force Mounties withheld some $10 million in funds earmarked for its National Child Exploitation Co-ordination Centre and related projects. It was later revealed that they also did not spend $97 million in 2013-14 that had earmarked for a series of key social programs, including one to fight youth unemployment and another to help the disabled. The shortfall amounted to more than five per cent of the budget for programs at Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC),
In March we found out that Minister of Public Works and Government Services Diane Finley decided to give $1 million to the Markham Centre for Skills and Independence under the Enabling Accessibility Fund  despite the fact the project failed funding criteria and included a “number of deficiencies.” Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson noted that “there were a number of interventions in relation to the proposal by the Prime Minister’s Office, two ministers, staff in Ms. Finley’s office and senior departmental officials.” The unethical interference reached the highest levels of the PMO, with Harper’s then-chief of staff Nigel Wright involved in discussions that at one point also included Harper, who told Wright to “sort it out,” according to the report.


In April instead of announcing the budget in the House of Commons, Oliver's office summoned media to the Canada Goose's factory in Toronto to announce his budget. In order to predict a balanced budget for 2015-16 they reduced government contingency funds by $2 billion and included the recent sale of the government’s remaining shares in General Motors, for another $1 billion.


Also in April having totally failed to address climate change federally The environment minister Leona Aglukkaq sent a letter just before a premiers meeting on climate change in Quebec City about their climate change efforts. Many provinces didn't react favourably to the letter, calling on the federal government to focus more on its own efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.



The Harper regime then booked $13.5 million for an all-out blitz in April and May to advertise its 2015 pre-election budget. The Canada Revenue Agency is spending $6 million on a concentrated TV bulk buy this month that includes pricey NHL playoff spots in what internal government documents describe as a continuation of an existing campaign that's been running all winter. The tax agency's $6 million in TV advertising is augmented by a $7.5 million campaign by the Finance department, all designed to promote previously announced and new targeted tax breaks. The spring ad blitz comes amid increasingly vocal opposition to the Harper government's use of taxpayer-funded advertising for clearly partisan reasons.



On June 3 2015 Liberal Senate leader Grant Mitchell confirmed that the government will shut down all debate on Bill C-51 at the Senate Chamber tomorrow. This means all amendments and the legislation as a whole will be voted on tomorrow. It passed in the Senate on June 9
Also in June The Harper regime appoints five new board members all with strong Conservative connections to the National Capital Commission ahead of a key decision on the future of a very controversial memorial to the victims of communism. “The question is, are these new appointments there simply to make sure this project is rubber stamped?” asked Ottawa Centre NDP MP Paul Dewar.
Former Conservative MP Del Mastro was sentenced to one month in jail for overspending on his 2008 election campaign; breaking his own spending limit; then filing a false campaign report. He previously sat on the House of Commons ethics committee and regularly defended the Conservative Party in question period on allegations related to the illegal robocalls sent to voters in the 2011 election.
Tory MPs voted to pass a time allocation motion on Bill C-59, a 167-page, omnibus budget implementation bill, this was the hundredth time that the Harper Conservatives have restricted debate since the start of Canada’s 41st Parliament in 2011.
The Bill contains unprecedented amendments to retroactively rewrite access to information laws, exempting all records from the defunct long-gun registry, and also any “request, complaint, investigation, application, judicial review, appeal or other proceeding under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act,” related to those old records. It effectively alters history to make an old government bill come into force months before it was actually passed by Parliament.


On June the 19^th parliament rose for summer and the Harper regimes minions promptly spread out across the country announcing a myriad of grants and projects designed to persuade the voting public to vote for them in the upcoming election. In one week late in July over $4 BILIONS worth of promises were made.


We could be forgiven for thinking the only thing happening on Canadian military bases over the past two weeks has been photo ops. Recently the department has sent out more than a dozen press releases and held several press conferences where Conservative MPs have announced investments in infrastructure at local bases and military facilities.


The federal government has funnelled 83 per cent of the projects under its signature infrastructure fund to Conservative-held ridings, according to an analysis by The Globe and Mail of the announcements made to date. The New Building Canada Fund was first announced in the 2013 budget, but it has only been within the past few weeks – on the eve of the federal election campaign – that specific announcements have started to flow at a steady pace.


In July despite their balanced budget promises made back in April the parliamentary budget officer says the federal Conservatives will fail to accomplish their key promise of balancing Ottawa’s books this year, instead running a $1-billion budget deficit in 2015,.
Later it was announced that Canada was officially in a recession although the PM refused to acknowledge this fact. The Conservative-dominated parliamentary finance committee voted against calling on Finance Minister Joe Oliver to testify in public about the state of Canada's finances amid a troubled economy as requested by the opposition.


In an apparent effort to keep their “war on terror” talking points before the public Minister Nicholson directed all bureaucrats working in security-related divisions to provide the minister's communications team with "...three MINA (ministerial) statements to the media regarding security in the context of terrorism each week." Since there were no such incidences the bureaucrats were unable to comply.


Late in July Stephen Harper, having not filled any vacancies for two years, announced a moratorium on further Senate appointments, blaming the problems of his previously poor choices on the provinces and suggesting that it needs to be abolished. (something that is not only all but impossible under the constitution but would leave a majority government with no checks to their power)
“This has two advantages. The first and obvious advantage is that it saves costs. The second advantage is that I think it will force the provinces, over time … to either come up with a plan for comprehensive reform or to conclude that the only way to deal with the status quo is abolition.” said Harper.



One of the last things the Harper government did before it launched the federal election was to appoint Steven Kelly to the National Energy Board, who is a consultant for Kinder Morgan. This guy was paid to convince the government to approve the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. And now he’ll be part of the team that helps to decide if his own argument was convincing.


On Aug 2 2015 Stephen Harper called the election several weeks earlier than was required by law resulting in an extended campaign period. Upon emerging from seeing the Governor General he promptly said:-
“As it is my intention to begin campaign-related activities, as is also the case for the other party leaders, it is important that these campaigns be funded by the parties themselves rather than taxpayers..........”
Given that the taxpayer reimburses 50% to 60% of all legitimate expenses incurred during an election period by political parties and their candidates and that, entirely due to measures brought in by Harper and his (un) Fair Elections Act, the upper limits to said reimbursements increases in proportion with the length of the campaign this to total and utter nonsense.




This is the final article in this series but we will attempt to publish a conclusion and index to the series in the near future. Although how to summarize 10 year of abuse in a few paragraphs makes this just a difficult as wading through the detritus has been in assembling this review of the democratic destruction by the Harper Regime.

Please Note
Parts 1 to 5 and Parts 6 to 9 are now available as two long document (19 pages - 7900 words and 27 pages - 10,230 words respectively) in chronological order and may be viewed, shared and downloaded on Google Docs. Here & Here. Due to the large number of embedded links I recommend you import them as a Docx, ODF Doc or HTML so that you may follow the references if you wish for more information on a particular issue.






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Debate about the Debate has started!

With the Conservatives quietly considering a proposal to hold up to five regional televised debates in the upcoming federal election to contrast Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s experience with rookie Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau the debate about the debates has started. Hoping to exploit Trudeau’s shoot-from-the-lip style, some Conservative insiders believe Harper could benefit from additional debates.


In my opinion that very much depends upon how much said leaders (particularly Harper) are held to account for untruths and inaccurate assertions & allegations. One way to see that such things do not go unchallenged is to ensure that the “Hardest Working MP” in the House of Commons is there to rebut the three traditional debaters. The fact that the 2012 Parliamentarian of the year also happens to be one of the Best Orator's according to her colleagues in the House may well be why none of those three will commit to insisting that the Green Party Leader participate.


It seems that the Conservatives think they can gain advantage from extra debates by “exploiting Trudeau’s shoot-from-the-lip style”, If a politician actually straying from the scripted talking points is a liability then we have indeed reach a point where truth, openness and accountability is a victim of political spin. Without becoming too partisan I can only say this is one reason why Ms May must be included for she has yet to fall victim to this insidious disease, not only that but she regularity dispenses an antidote to it. Its called support for parliamentary democracy and involves fighting tooth and nail against any who would remove power from our elected MPs and place it in the hands of one individual and his unelected office boys. She also recognizes a cheater when she sees one, something the 'moguls' don’t seem to understand. “Stephen Harper’s staff took care to print out background notes (something specifically not allowed during the 2008 debate) on index cards, but they picked the wrong-sized cards. And no one writes in printer font. Looking over from my seat, I remember the shock of realizing he was cheating,”


It seems the Conservatives and the NDP want many debates, but sources in both parties say they also want to limit the number of participants to the “main parties,” believing that the contrast between Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair would be sharper without the three other party leaders on stage. I dont know about that but I am not sure how much I could take of Mulclair and Harper attacking each other and Trudeau who I hope will not fall into that trap and instead stick to a positive message. I do know that if a sitting Leader of a party with candidates in every province across this country and support of millions of Canadians is deliberately excluded for a televised national debate then her fight for democracy has already taken a mortal blow.


The 'Leaders' would have us believe that such decisions are entirely up to the 'consortium' of TV moguls however that is not entirely true as earlier attempts from Ms May to be included in the debate reveal.
In 2008 Editor-In-Chief of CBC TV News, Tony Burman, characterized the debate process as a sham, stating that, "Some networks worried that adding a fifth leader would make the debate 'unwatchable' but we all knew that the elephant in the room was actually living at 24 Sussex Drive. And he – the Prime Minister – would effectively have veto power. Within days of the [Media Consortium] meeting, we were privately told by the Conservative Party representative that Prime Minister Harper would not participate in the debates if the Green Party leader was there.
In this instance Ms May was eventualy included and “Many commentators proclaimed May’s debut in the leaders debates to be a major breakthrough for the party, and were surprised that she proved to be a strong debater on a wide range of issues.” However in 2011 Harper and the other leaders got their way and the Green Party leader was excluded with the excuse that “her party did not have representation in the House of Commons.” That excuse no longer is available so what excuse do they all have now?


If ANY of those 'leaders or media moguls care one whit for democracy they will not only 'allow' Elizabeth May to join the debate but insist right from the start that she do so. Instead we see this:=
Recently, Mulcair refused to say who should be part of the debate.
“That is something that is completely left up to the consortium, and I will follow whatever they decide,”
Trudeau said. “I look forward to having discussions about that with the consortium of broadcasters as it comes closer to it. Right now, it’s too early to say who should be in,”
Troy Reeb, the vice-president of news for Shaw Media, said Global News’ position is that the more debates that can be organized, the better it is for Canadian democracy.
“If, however, the parties determine, as they have in the past, that they are unwilling to have their leaders attend multiple debates,” Reeb said in an email, “then we stand prepared to work again with other broadcasters to ensure any single English-language debate reaches the widest audience possible.
“Questions of format and who would be invited would obviously be up for discussion at that time.”
“who would be invited would obviously be up for discussion at that time.”
So its NOT just up the the Media but is the subject of 'discussion', come on Trudeau and Mulclair step up and speak out for democracy and insist upon the debates include all sitting party leaders (with national support?) participate, we know Harper will not!

EDIT It is interesting to note in the context of the above that the CBC (and other TV conglomerates) has refused to air an advertisement from The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting that is critical of Stephen Harper and his cuts to everything.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Blind Obedience, the Tool of Tyrants

A guest post by Pamela Mac Neil


“Here is how you're going to vote and here are your talking points”

On capital hill the above line is the kind of conversation, probably repeated many times, initiated by junior in the PMO's office, to Harpers backbenchers and various cabinet MP's. He/she may continue to say, the PM wants this bill passed at tomorrows question period and by the way, junior may add to the selected MP, usually a back bencher, the PM would also like you to ask this question in the House. Could the PM elaborate on "unconfirmed reports of a possible terrorist attack." There have been other scripted questions asked by various Conservative MP's that Harper has answered for the simple reason of manipulating the listening public to his agenda. This discourse usually precludes some policy or unconstitutional legislation he wants to enact. I'm sure that all departments come under Harpers thumb, but the two most troubling to me is Harpers Caucus and Cabinet. Harpers pursuit of power is not achieved, even if only some of the time, in isolation. His Caucus and Cabinet support that pursuit. They are his enablers. Caucus is supposed to hold the government to account, instead they follow orders abandoning their thinking and responsibility. The communications between the PMO and Harpers MP's has become a world of obedience and unity..


I've had a question that has bothered me for many years and I have answered it in part, but not in whole. The question is: Why do people in a free society obey? It's one thing for a person to obey in their personal life. It's another thing when people's obedience control the power of our democracy and in most cases, their decisions jeopardize the very freedom of our democracy, when these are the people who have been elected to protect our democracy. Why do MP's, some middle aged with alot of experience, obey a man like Harper. Part of the reason lies in the Evangelical Christian fundamentalists in Harpers caucus and cabinet. Anyone who's beliefs are completely lacking in any evidential proof and are accepted with unquestioning compliance, have shut down their minds and are in fact opposed to critical thinking. Being an Evangelical Christian does not require independent thought, but it does require obedience. What they call morals is simply blind obedience to commands. Obeying Harper is easy, because it's already a part of their identity. There are other reasons that MP's who are not religious or at the very least are not religious fundamentalists also obey, but how can any of these MP's not know that Harper is a dictatorial wanna be. This for me is what is so disturbing, that they do know that Harper is a tyrant and they still support his authoritarian agenda through their obedience. Why would free men and woman vote Canada into a dictatorship, ruled by a man whose total sense of worth is defined by how much power he has.


It is these MP's who in their support literally provide the power to Harper. They operate on one principle, obedience. They have given Harper the power to punish or reward them and our democracy is being destroyed so that MP's may have a chance to rise preferably to a cabinet post. They do not achieve success in their careers by merit, but rather by pull. Why does it not matter to these men and woman that they along with Harper, those we have entrusted with power, have perverted that power into tyranny. People who live under existing dictatorships obey out of fear, fear of imprisonment or death by the state. In a free society like Canada what are these MP's afraid of? What will happen to them if they choose to say no to Harper? Could it be that they are quite prepared to live in a dictatorship of there own making, under the rule of Harper? They cannot, not know, that with the present regime, that this is where Canada is heading. The power that these MP's are helping to create, if continued, will totally disempower the Canadian people. Power not supported by a nation is gotten through deceit, founded mainly in secrecy. Obedience to a political authority is voluntary slavery.

I watch from a distance because as a Canadian who is not a member of Stephen Harpers base even though I am one of the majority in Canada, I am not considered, nor am I included, along with the rest of the majority, as an integral part of the governmental process. Everything with Harper is at arms length, there are no close-up views. Regardless of the distance I have to remind myself that I am watching, almost daily, the govenment of the Canada, literally dismantling our democracy. I sometimes wish there was an alarm I could set off that would warn Canadians of the impending disaster. In the culture of Harpers government there is no negotiations, no discussions, only "grinding mediocrity" and conformity . It is a place where obedience is highly valued and bowed subservience is the position of the day. It is a place where thinking and confidence go to die. For the Canadian who is indifferent to this dictatorial power that is unfolding in our present government, I would suggest that you take a closer look at Harper and the people in his government, people who have targeted you as the enemy, so you will know how small, how mindless, how worthless, how insignifigant the people in this regime, those who you have sacrificed your freedom to, truly are, also you have not given away your freedom to a powerful, influential dynamic leader, but to a corner thug. Next year I will still be wondering ,in part anyway, why people in a free society obey, but I'd like to be able to add, but not the Canadian electorate in 2015. The Conservative MP's doctrine of blind obedience to Harper is a doctrine of despotism and has no place in Canadian society.


Below I have included several quotes from Pierre Trudeau purely for contrast.


"Let us overthrow the totems, break the taboo's, or better still, let us consider them cancelled. Coldly, let us be intelligent."

"I speak of a country where every person is free to fulfill himself or herself to the utmost, unhindered by the arbritrary actions of government."

"There is no such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What would be more absurd than the concept of an "all Canadian" boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate."

"The attainment of a just society is the cherished hope of civilized men."


Pamela Mac Neil's main interest is studying how  ideas from philosophy and history shape politics, particularly Canadian politics.














































Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Successful Coverup, Fall Guy Convicted

The Conservative party has consistently said it ran a clean and ethical campaign and had nothing to do with what happened in Guelph and has also said that they 'fully cooperated ' with the investigation by Elections Canada. This being the case then how is it that only one person was charged, and now convicted, in what was obviously a far wider conspiracy?

November 14, 2013, One of Prime Minister Stephen Harper‘s top advisers instructed a potential key witness in the robocalls investigation to delay an interview with an Elections Canada investigator until she could obtain legal advice.

Jenni Byrne, who was the Conservatives’ national campaign manager during the 2011 election, emailed Guelph campaign worker Andrew Prescott on Nov. 30, 2011, to ask him not to talk to an investigator looking into the “Pierre Poutine” robocall until she had a chance to talk to the party’s lawyer.

Prescott, whose computer was later linked to the robocall through web data logs, consulted with party lawyer Arthur Hamilton, as instructed by the party, in December, but he didn’t speak with the investigator until more than two months later –  on Feb. 24, 2012, the day after the Ottawa Citizen and Postmedia News reported that the fraudulent election-day robocall had been sent through a Conservative voter-contact firm.

Prescott was given immunity for his testimony which turned ot to be “unreliable” and “selfserving” and another key person Ken Morgan fled overseas never to be heard from. It seems that the new Commissioner of Canada Elections will not be perusing this any further in that he can find 'no evidence' that any such calls took place outside of Guelph.

Prescott, however, cannot be charged because he was given an immunity agreement from the Crown in exchange for testimony against Sona — testimony that, ultimately, Hearn found unreliable.

Ken Morgan, the campaign manager, has refused to speak to Elections Canada investigators and moved to Kuwait during the nearly three-year investigation. He has not been charged.

Unclear is whether Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté, who investigates alleged violations of the elections law, will re-open his investigation of the Guelph robocalls to find the other alleged collaborators or simply let the matter drop.

Côté has already said he could find no evidence to support allegations of misleading calls reported in more than 200 ridings that Elections Canada during the election.

Prescott involved more than he said

One person mentioned in the judge’s ruling was Andrew Prescott – the deputy campaign manager and IT professional who received immunity to testify against Sona.

Hearn threw out the majority of Prescott’s evidence, calling it “self-serving.”

“There certainly is some basis for the court being concerned Mr. Prescott was involved more so than he indicated,” Hearn wrote.

Prescott declined to comment Thursday. Throughout the trial, court heard that Prescott withheld information from investigators, even after he struck his immunity deal in December 2013.

In short can you say “successful coverup” and “fall guy convicted”

For more news articles and details of this 3 year 'investigation' see my Electoral Malfeasance page, my apologies if there are some articles that have disappeared since being originally posted.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Harpers “Democracy”

With the Harper Regime loosing a series of rulings in the Supreme Court of Canada from their plans for the senate to prostitution laws to his nomination to the court it should be no surprise that as well as Harpers direct attack upon Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin he now has set his minions out to attack the Supreme Court in general. It would seem that the Court making rulings that follow the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now a “problem” and that groups using the Charter to defend their rights when a new attack upon our democracy issues from the Con Oligarchy is somehow antidemocratic.

Andrew Coyne writes

...............over on the democratically elected house, unintended irony was also the order of the day. In a story bearing the imperishable headline “Conservatives warn of diminishing Parliamentary power,” Conservative MP Larry Miller told the Post’s John Ivison of his growing dismay that the “courts are making laws.”
“I’m all for rights and freedoms,” he said, “but the Charter complicates things.” The problem, as far as rights and freedoms are concerned, is that we have “complicated” them by writing them into law..............
The idea of codifying rights in law they tend to regard as a vaguely Gallic plot, perhaps forgetting Canada’s original Bill of Rights, the handiwork of a certain John George Diefenbaker.
Miller does not disappoint. “Pierre Trudeau,” he said, “did this willfully and deliberately, taking rights away from the majority to protect the minority.” Can you believe it? Protecting the minority. I mean, who the hell elected him?..................

As things stand, MPs seem content to abdicate this responsibility to the courts, so they can pick fights with them later. “Why elect people and pay them to do something the courts are doing,” Miller grumbles. Why, indeed.

Just to make it clear that this is not just Larry Miller spouting off but a directive from above, we have another report of the same talking points being floated from the other side of the country......

Dan Albas, the MP for Okanagan-Coquihalla, says that while he respects the courts he also believes an increasing number of groups are using litigation to advance policies the government will not put forward. 

"Often the Plan B is to do an end-run around our democratic process and turn to the courts where it seems some judges are quite happy to engage. This can result in decisions contrary to what have been decided in our democratic process," Albas told CBC Radio's The House.

The Con view of 'democratic process' being create laws without consultation, limit debate and force legislation through as quickly as possible whilst spending thousands of dollars of public money promoting their view and calling those with a different point of view anti-Canadian or worse. This is of course now standard practice of the Harper Regime – anything or anyone who blocks or disagrees with their wishes is wrong and must be eliminated

The government has, for all intents and purposes, successfully defunded Canada’s advocacy movement — well, those advocates that disagree with them anyway, like women’s rights and child-care activists, environmental and scientific researchers. They have eliminated funding for roundtable consensus-building initiatives as well as non-governmental organizations dedicated to promoting human rights and equality for women around the globe.

The list is long and depressing.

The government has used, or rather abused, its power in so many ways that Canadians have perhaps grown immune to the attacks on democracy and civil society.

Whilst the following comment was written in response to a CBC article about the behaviour in the Ontario Legislature it is just as valid to all politicians in all provinces and those in the federal legislature.

I'm old, and have watched politics and politicians all my adult life. But this crop of politicians from all levels of government all across the country exhibit anger and partisanship at a level I have never before seen. Civil behaviour is tossed out the window and the work of governing takes second place to scoring points and attempting to destroy opposing politicians and opposing parties. Win at all costs takes priority over serving those who they were elected to govern.

We should not accept this behaviour in our politicians. We need to demand that they submit people of integrity and civility for election. We should demand that personal attacks on each other end. We should demand that political debate be just that... debating the merits of the different party proposals for action, and we should demand that governments be flexible enough to through out parts of their legislation which debate has shown to be unacceptable to most Canadians and to incorporate the best ideas from opposition parties.

Our system of government would be far more efficient, less wasteful and satisfy the needs and want of more Canadians if they would clean up their act.

"Gr8 Scott " is correct we should not accept this behaviour in our politicians and I would suggest that the recent upsurge of non cooperative partisanship across the country is in part due to the various partys watching Harper ignore parliamentary convention, stifle debate, unilaterally change the rules and attack those who disagree with him both within parliament and within the advocacy community. That he has thus far 'got away with it' and, unless the public wakes up to his dictatorial ambitions, may well continue to do so scares the hell out of me.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Prerequisites for Democratic Legitimacy

Anita Vandenbeld author of an article called ‘Imposing Legitimacy: The Dilemma of International Democratic Development’ for LawNow magazine and former director of parliamentary affairs for Jacques Saada, the first minister of Democratic Reform in 2004, recently wrote an article on the legitimacy of bill C23. In it, in contrast to her previous article where she raised the question of how democratic institutions become legitimate in the eyes of a population, she now asks how do democratic institutions lose their legitimacy?


Here are some extracts, read the whole thing at Ipolitics:-


Basically, I argued there are five prerequisites for democratic legitimacy:

• A legal or constitutional basis for authority;
  
• Enforcement mechanisms;
  
• Impartial decision-makers (financial independence, security of tenure);
  
• Transparency in decision-making;
  
• Mechanisms for giving or withholding consent.
  

Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act, risks undermining each of these prerequisites for democratic legitimacy. It risks stripping Elections Canada of its democratic legitimacy and endangering the future of free and fair elections in Canada. The legal basis for elections in Canada is the Canada Elections Act. Changes to this law must be taken very seriously and be based on the widest possible public and expert consultation. ........................
One of my responsibilities in Kosovo was to work with the Legislative Assembly to pass a law that would make independent institutions (like our Officers of Parliament) accountable to Parliament and not to the government. This is no mere formality — it affects everything a parliament does..............
Under Bill C-23, the enforcement arm of Elections Canada (Commissioner of Canada Elections) will be moved to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is appointed by the government and reports only indirectly to Parliament through the government. I brought a delegation to Canada from Kosovo in 2007 on a study visit to learn how Canadian institutions maintain their independence from government. Today, I would be embarrassed to bring them to Canada.
One of the more egregious aspects of Bill C-23 is that it actually forbids Elections Canada or the Chief Electoral Officer from communicating with the public. No more reports. No more voter education. No more communication about robocalls or any other investigations.
In every international best-practice regarding democracy, transparency is the number one criteria. It is hard to imagine how a country can maintain elections transparency when the body that runs elections is no longer allowed to speak to the people. Even former auditor general Sheila Fraser has criticized this aspect of the bill, saying: “Independent officers of Parliament — the government is now restricting what they can say? It’s just so inappropriate.”
I can honestly say that in all my years of working on democratic development with the United Nations, OSCE, NDI and other international organizations on five continents, I have not found another electoral commission that was prohibited by law from speaking to the public about elections or doing public awareness campaigns to encourage people to vote.
Anita Vandenbeld worked for a number of years internationally on democratic development with the United Nations Development Programme, the National Democratic Institute,the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Parliamentary Centre.



Exactly, changes to our electoral system that are forced through the legislative process and are not based upon based on the “widest possible public and expert consultation” or are contrary to the wishes of the majority of Canadians cannot be viewed as legitimate. This would make the results of the next election questionable no matter what party gains the right to govern, but certainly given the bias in this legislation to the current regime would make a win by them nothing short of a coup d'etat.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Winning at All Costs.

I think we are all sick of the win at all cost mentality of our political parties and their leaders, this mentality is not restricted to just the Harper Regime, although it is certainly most prevalent with that group of oligarchs, but can be seen with very few exceptions in all parties and both provincial and federal politics. I recently came across a piece from Scott, a recent graduate of the University of Saskatchewan with a degree in Political Studies who puts it like this:-


"Almost all of the political parties in today's system seem to be more concerned with winning an election than with improving our country. It's the reason why in every leadership race, almost every candidate is always introduced as the "Next Prime Minister/Premier/whatever." Yes, if you win you get to implement your policies. But at the same time, for many, it seems like winning is enough.

And when we become so focused on just winning for the sake of winning, or worse winning for the sake of making sure the other team doesn't, we put our blinders on. We can see this in the culture of corruption that has basically claimed the backrooms of the Conservative Party. From robocalls from the CIMS database, to robocalls about Irwin Cotler, to robocalls in Saskatchewan, to Eve Adams using her position to campaign for a nomination in a new riding; we see people making dodgy, and in many cases illegal, decisions for the sake of winning.

If we want to tackle election fraud and fair elections, the first place to look isn't to the voter: It's to the parties. We need to ensure that parties are following the laws that are written down for them; and that even a single rogue campaign worker is punished for daring to step outside those bounds. We need to stop letting parties find 'gray zones' in the laws, and instead insist that all parties remain on the fair footing that we're supposed to offer.

Who cares if it's not technically illegal or only against the spirit, but not the word, of the law? Parties, it seems, will take the shortcuts and moral lowroad to achieve the victory of winning it would seem. Democracy is supposed to foster policy discussion and alternative visions for our country; that is not what we've been getting.”


Exactly, “If we want to tackle election fraud and fair elections, the first place to look isn't to the voter: It's to the parties.”, and yet the Unfair Elections Act completely ignores this truth. In fact it actually goes in the opposite direction by removing any investigative powers from Elections Canada and failing to follow the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer to enforce testimony in the case of wrongdoing. Which given that said regime has been busy withholding information on the robocall issue for many months now would seem to be an effort to shut down said efforts to find out the truth. And now it would seem they have succeeded :-


“In light of the government’s announcement in the fall that it would introduce comprehensive legislative reform, Elections Canada decided to postpone the general enforcement report until after the next general election,” she said. “This was necessary not only to focus our attention and resources on the announced reform, but also of the difficulty of engaging stakeholders simultaneously on a parallel initiative.” It would seem that Elections Canada is already less than “independent' even before the proposed changes and already under the Harper Regimes control!


Then comes the issue of buying an election by those with deeper pockets than the average voter and by parties who cater to corporate sponsors to raise money to further the agenda of the rich and powerful rather than the wishes of the average citizen. On this issue Scott says this:-


“Democracy is a nice idea in theory, a sentiment that is usually applied to communism, but in practice it doesn't always work. This is especially true when you consider the big money that goes into politics.

Democracy cannot work when money plays a more important role than the actual voice of the people. That is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. Which is why if we ever want a fair election, we must support 100% public funded elections.

There is a question as to whether or not we should even allow parties to raise money at all; though, I do realize that parties do rely on paid employees as well as volunteers. It's a tricky balance, but not impossible to achieve. So, while I'm not saying we should completely stop parties from fundraising, we should explore avenues to restrict what they can use raised funds for. Office and staff expenses, yes. Running a multi-million dollar ad campaign, no.”


Whilst I dont agree with Scott that elections should be totally publicly funded (I think it is simply not possible to institute and monitor such a system) I do think that the limits of what a party or individual can raise during an election should be reduced NOT increased as proposed in the 'lets see how much more we can cheat elections act'. Not only does the increase make the playing field even more tilted towards the affluent voter but some of the changes, in particular that of exempting certain previous detonators contributions from being counted, are totally impossible to monitor and ensure that the rules are followed. As with the elimination of the 'per vote subsidy' this is directly aimed at lesser parties who if they had the resources to put their position in front of the public in the same manner as the big boys would undoubtedly gain a huge upswing in support.


“The former auditor general (Sheila Fraser) is also troubled by a provision that would allow political parties to exempt from their campaign spending limits any money spent to raise funds from people who’ve donated at least $20 over the previous five years. She said that amounts to a giant loophole that would allow well-established parties to spend untold millions more during campaigns but would be “unfair” to new parties, which have no history of past donors.
Moreover, she questioned how pitches for donations can be distinguished from pitches for support and how Elections Canada could monitor and verify that the exemption was not being abused, given that the bill does not give the agency the power to audit party books or demand to see their records, invoices or receipts – a power successive chief electoral officers have long sought.”
The other thing that the influence of money in our democratic process cannot be ignored is the ongoing television, and now radio, ads taken out by the Harper Regime, not to tell us anything about what they are doing (they use taxpayers money for that, plugging their non existent 'Action Plan' ) but to make personal attacks upon another parties leader. That they have been doing this for months and over a year ahead of any election shows exactly how devoid of any morals or any respect for democracy they are. Without masses of influx of cash from the rich this sickening reflection of the win at all costs and money can buy anything mindset would not be possible.


As Scott says “Democracy cannot work when money plays a more important role than the actual voice of the people.”




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Citizens Protest Unfair Election Act

Many of my reader will be aware that last Tuesday a number of citizens gathered in front of Conservative MP's Offices across the country to show their opposition to the Unfair Elections Act that is being railroaded through the legislative process by the Harper Regime. One such non partisan gathering sponsored by LeadNow took place in front of my local MP's office, that of Larry Miller, where folks from several opposition parties and local non partisan groups spoke to the crowd. Kimberly Love of the Liberals and Karen Gventer of the NDP spoke of the injustices - the removal of voting rights ( a right guaranteed by our constitution) of some one hundred thousand Canadians who require the vouching system and removing the power of oversight of Elections Canada. Karen touched upon our electoral system and the need to change it.
Scott Maxted of the Greens focused upon what needs to happen in Canada for Canadians to push out the Conservative destruction machine - electoral reform and the need to put partisanship aside. He spoke of the possible correlation found between the removal of the Per-Vote Subsidy and the task of promoting voting. With the removal of the subsidy and the low youth vote for the Conservative Party is there a possible correlation between slowing a party's progress down with the extra costs incurred with said promotions and the costs of running a strong campaign?


The local media reported upon this rally and contacted Mr Miller, who was not present but in Ottawa, and he is quoted as saying "Most people in this day and age should have ID, and it doesn't have to be photo ID, there are 39 different pieces of things that you can use and I don't think it is a stretch for anybody to come up with a combination that will work."
That is of course the party line which he is obliged to spout however the most telling part of that comment is “Most people”, Exactly - Most People NOT All People!
He went on to say "If anyone has legitimate suggestions on how to make the bill better I will personally deliver them to the minister, it is as simple as that,". Just about the same time as he said this his Conservative colleagues on the committee charged with studying this deeply flawed legislation blocked an NDP motion to allow Green, Bloc Quebecois, and independent MPs the right to formally examine and speak to the bill at the committee stage. Given that action, the closure of debate when first presented, the refusal thus far to even consider any amendments, and the long history of rejecting any opinions other than their own, this statement from Mr Miller is meaningless!


As I have said before not only is the bill 'flawed' (read totally unacceptable as written) but the process is also unacceptable. How can you substantially change the laws governing election processes without broad consensus and open discussion and call it a democratic process. If the both electorate and the opposition MP's (who represent over 60% the population) have no faith in it and does not believe it it open and fair then democracy is doomed. A recent poll reinforced this in that it found that “Seventy per cent of respondents said that the act’s elimination of Elections Canada’s ability to publicly report on voter complaints it receives, including about fraudulent calls, makes them less supportive of the legislation. When asked about the Unfair Elections Act’s elimination of the voucher system used by over 100,000 people, 61% said it made them less supportive of the bill.”


Much more startling to me however was this “The survey found that only 27% of Canadians are familiar with the act”, the ignorance of the electorate on this issue is not really surprising in that it is hardly front page news on a daily basis and has only just recently seen much mention in national newscasts. It is however very worrying in that the only way to stop or change this legislation is through public pressure on the Harper Regime and its henchmen, you know those folks who were elected to represent US in the House of Commons NOT the oligarchs who designed this legislation to feather their own nest.


I can only once again repeat Ed Broadbent's words “Past governments have avoided turning democratic process into a tool for one party’s advantage. Changes in electoral processes were always based on all-party consensus. That Harper derides such all-party consensus is, sadly, no surprise. That his robotic backbench will unquestioningly obey is not news either. Except now, the victims of his disregard for debate aren’t only the people we elect. It’s those doing the electing as well.”


Oh, and just in case you thought that there has been any change in the regimes Modus operandi you should be aware that both the misnaming of whos government it is and the Orwellian naming of bills is in full force with the naming of the 359 page budget bill just introduced. It not only once again covers a myriad on non budget items but is named the “Harper Government Creating Jobs & Growth While Returning to Balanced Budgets With Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1.”.
No really, I am not kidding! I had to check the government site to make sure it was not a joke!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Undemocratic Democratic Reform

Are changes to an electoral system in a democracy valid if they are brought in by a less than democratic process, are they in fact valid if the very 'independent' body charged with overseeing said electoral system is excluded from the process? Are they valid if recommendations from said body are ignored, debate within our parliamentary system on such measures is curtailed, concerns by parliamentarians and democracy experts across a broad range of political and non partisan stripes fall upon deaf ears? Are they in fact actually antidemocratic if they are not generally accepted by those whos right to select their government representative in a free and unbiased system is impacted?


Irregardless of the content of the (Un) Fair Elections Act the process to make such changes MUST be seen to be an open and unbiased process with all views carefully taken into account and partisan issues set aside if it has any chance of being anything more than a cynical attempt by a regime already proven to have little regard for democracy, either at the election booth or withing parliament, to further diminish our ability to elect a government that reflect our wishes.


Electoral or parliamentary reform by decree is NOT democratic reform, it is the first step towards dictatorship. If the population does not trust the electoral process or is prevented from participating the our democracy is on the very edge of that which Mr Harper is so busy condemning in Crimea.


Thats the process, and that is troubling enough, but the content is almost universally condemned as unacceptable. Not only that but it is so far reaching and contains so many changes to the electoral process, the funding thereof and Elections Canada’s ability to oversee the election process that few, if any, really know what the full impact of passing this bill would mean. Here are SOME of the more well known issues raised thus far:-


Some of biggest problems identified by Elections Canada:
– The Fair Elections Act allows the incumbent party in each riding to appoint the central poll supervisors, a key job at each polling place. This may give rise to the impression that their decisions are partisan, whether they are or not. Elections Canada wants to appoint central poll supervisors and other election officials rather than letting parties put their people in.
– The act will stop the use of voter information cards (VICs) as identification at the polls. Elections Canada says for Canadians who don’t have ID showing their address — including many aboriginals, students and seniors — the VICs provided a simple way to show where they live.
– The act will require Elections Canada to give “bingo cards” — lists of who have voted — to the political parties after each election, which Elections Canada warns has privacy implications. Currently, officials give the cards to party scrutineers to assist in their get-out-the-vote effort but it’s not possible for parties to assemble a national database of who has voted.
– The new robocall registry that the act will require be established will not require records to be kept of what numbers were called, “which is key information for investigations,” according to Elections Canada.
– The act provides an exemption from election spending limits for money spent on telephone fundraising from former donors, which Elections Canada warns sets up a big loophole that political parties can exploit, since the agency will have no way of knowing if the parties’ reporting is accurate.
– The act allows for compliance audits of the parties’ books, but does not allow Elections Canada to produce documents proving that its financial statements are on the up and  up.
– The act requires that commissioner, who supervises investigations, keep confidential information about investigations. This means that nobody will have the authority to report to Canadians on election crime, even to reassure voters that fraud did not take place.
– The act does not do several things Elections Canada had requested — extend privacy protection to political parties, and provide investigators with the power to compel testimony from witnesses to election crime.

Other issues

Electoral Education
The Chief Electoral office may no longer be given the mandate to promote and educate our electoral process to Canadians.
Hiring
The hiring of staff on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer will have to go through the treasury board.
Campaign Funding
The amount election candidates would be able donate to their own campaign (to $5,000 from $1,200), and the amount party leadership candidates would be able to donate to their own race (to $25,000 from $1,200).”
It would also allow parties to exclude money spent during campaigns to solicit funds from donors who have contributed $20 or more to them at any point over the previous five years.
Failure to consult


The proposed legislation was prepared without any consultation with our Chief Electoral Officer and in fact ignore sever of his earlier recommendations. Debate has already been limited in the House and proposals to consult with Canadians across the country have been rejected. Several observers including some influential Conservatives and former Leaders have said that electoral reform must have broad support in order to be legitimate.


Interpretation of rules
16.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall,in accordance with this section, issue guidelines
and interpretation notes on the application of this Act to registered parties, etc etc
(8) The guidelines and interpretation notes are issued for information purposes only. They are not binding on registered parties, etc etc


Some of the Spin
In an attempt to defuse the impact of facts, Pierre Poilievre went on CPAC to "correct the explicit factual error in the CEO's testimony" and again read the sentence from the report that he's quoted so many times he probably hears it in his sleep.  "The Supreme Court made it clear that such errors in other circumstances could contribute to a court overturning an election." 

Now it seems that Mr Neufeld himself, would like to correct Mr. Polilievre's deliberate SELECTIVE quoting.  According to Neufeld at no point in his report did he suggest that any of the irregulatities sited in his report were evidence of fraud. The author of a report cited repeatedly to justify cracking down on potential voter fraud says the Harper government is misrepresenting his report and ignoring his recommendations. Indeed, Harry Neufeld says there's not a shred of evidence that there have been more than "a handful" of cases of deliberate voter fraud in either federal or provincial elections.

His recommendations (never quoted by Poilievre )

• voter information cards should be more widely allowed as valid pieces of i.d.
  
• vouching process and paperwork should be simplified
  
• elections officials better trained
  

And finally some of the reaction by those far more qualified to speak to the matter than I:-


Ed Broadbent
Past governments have avoided turning democratic process into a tool for one party’s advantage. Changes in electoral processes were always based on all-party consensus.
That Harper derides such all-party consensus is, sadly, no surprise. That his robotic backbench will unquestioningly obey is not news either. Except now, the victims of his disregard for debate aren’t only the people we elect. It’s those doing the electing as well.



A letter signed by over 150 professors at Canadian universities who teach and conduct research on the principles and practices of constitutional democracies, including 15 past presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association.
We, the undersigned — professors at Canadian universities who study the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy — believe that the Fair Elections Act (Bill C-23), if passed, would damage the institution at the heart of our country’s democracy: voting in federal elections.
We urge the Government to heed calls for wider consultation in vetting this Bill. While we agree that our electoral system needs some reforms, this Bill contains proposals that would seriously damage the fairness and transparency of federal elections and diminish Canadians’ political participation.
Beyond our specific concerns about the Bill’s provisions (see below), we are alarmed at the lack of due process in drafting the Bill and in rushing it through Parliament. We see no justification for introducing legislation of such pivotal importance to our democracy without significant consultation with Elections Canada, opposition parties, and the public at large.



Preston Manning
Manning said he wants to see the federal government's Fair Elections Act legislation amended to "strengthen, rather than reducing, the role of Elections Canada and the chief electoral officer with respect to promotional and educational activities designed to increase voter participation in Canada’s elections."



We cannot let the Conservative regime continue with their destruction of our parliamentary democracy by allowing them to force through legislation that disenfranchises some segments of our society, enables the rich to have an increased influence upon election activities and totally guts the ability of Elections Canada to encourage citizens to participate in this fundamental democratic process.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Undemocratic Election Act

“The things in it that are good could have been so much better, but the things that are bad are unforgivable in a democracy.”

Recently Green Party Leader Elizabeth May had an opportunity to speak to the Commons Committee considering Bill C23, The 'Fair' Elections Act. What follows are some extracts from that presentation, for a full transcript and audio of that speech please go the her MPs website.


Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to speak to Bill C-23 today. I want to pause and say that when we have these rushed processes with closure on debate and an abbreviated time to look at a critical bill, it is rare for me to have a speaking opportunity. Therefore, I want to thank the Liberal Party for giving me a speaking slot today........

We need reform. We need a fair elections act. We need to deal with the unhealthy level of hyper-partisanship, the non-stop attack ads, and the fact that we have not gotten to the bottom of the robocall scandal of the last election. However, this bill is not it.........

A lot of things now pass for political prowess, for which anyone who loves democracy should hang their head in shame and be condemned from ever standing for election again. This is not about every party getting out and urging everyone to vote, as we have heard people from across the aisle say all day. Over and over again, we have examples of efforts to do exactly the opposite. I am afraid this bill is in that spirit of reducing voter turnout..........

I do not really think it is a problem to create a commissioner for elections who operates out of the office of public prosecutions. I see that as an independent place. The problem is the government has not given that office any tools. It has not given that officer subpoena powers. What is worse is, for some reason, it has created a “black box” surrounding the work. It would amend the Access to Information Act to remove, from access to information, anything going on in the work of the commissioner for Canada’s elections. They would also remove in the Elections Act the requirement to give any information about investigations..........

(T)he bill also includes a big new loophole for the spending of money. It now will not be considered an elections expense to spend money on activities that are considered fundraising for nomination candidates. That is an open door to abuse.
What is the worst part of this bill? This cuts to the core of democracy. This is a charter issue. I turn to a most recent statement by the Supreme Court of Canada on the right of Canadians to vote.........
The right of every citizen to vote, guaranteed by s. 3 of the Charter, lies at the heart of Canadian democracy....... Our system strives to treat candidates and voters fairly, both in the conduct of elections and in the resolution of election failures. As we have discussed, the Act seeks to enfranchise all entitled persons,…
A voter can establish Canadian citizenship verbally, by oath.
That cannot happen any more, not with this bill........

We need to do everything possible to restore faith among the Canadian public in the health of our democratic system, and this bill takes us in the absolute wrong direction. Why would a governing party do this? Why is there such a rush to disenfranchise Canadians? Is there an election coming right away that we do not know about? Do we have to have all these new rules in place for first nations, seniors, young people, the poor, and the groups that advocate for those parts of our society that are more disenfranchised by having to produce government-issued photo IDs? Is that the point?
I am baffled and appalled and deeply shocked and troubled by this bill. The things in it that are good could have been so much better, but the things that are bad are unforgivable in a democracy.
Elizabeth May, 11 Feb 2014

There is not much that this lowly blogger can add to the words of someone as knowledgeable about parliamentary procedures and dedicated to the protection of our democracy as Ms May, but to say that it is a sad reflection of where our democracy has descended to when a parliamentarian, and a leader of a political party, has to rely upon the goodwill of another party in order to address a parliamentary committee. That the subject matter is fundamental to the democracy of our Country and that debate upon said bill has already been restricted says much about exactly about how much respect that the current regime has for our parliamentary democracy and the traditions of free debate and open and accountable government.
As for real electoral reform and any kind of move towards a more representative system of electing those parliamentarians, or even a study of such changes, there is not even a mention of it in this bill.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers