Jump to content

Open Topic On Canadian Politics


Guest longtimer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest longtimer

I'll start it off with this article. It seems strange / wrong that anyone could be able to vote in a Federal Election without showing some type of approved ID. I wonder why anyone would be against the proposed change?

to vote? Bring ID!

7:35 am, April 8th, 2014EDITORIAL - Want to vote? Bring ID!

PROTEST AGAINST THE FAIR ELECTIONS ACT IN SARNIA, ONT.

Credits: TYLER KULA/ THE OBSERVER/ QMI AGENCY

QMI AGENCY

You've really got to stop and ask what sort of politician thinks it's a scandal to eliminate vouching at the polls.

Most media reports out there note that this is the most controversial part of the Fair Elections Act, currently working its way through Parliament.

Based on what it does, it should be the least controversial -- the one unanimously agreed upon.

Let's be clear about what we're discussing: Vouching allows a person with absolutely no identification to vote if another person with ID vouches that they are who they say they are.

The NDP have a petition going around labelling the measures "voter suppression tactics." But why on earth would we want to keep such a measure?

Even without this provision, it's not that difficult to vote -- even for people who move frequently.

If a voter doesn't have a piece of government-issued ID with the right address on it, he or she can still vote.

The voter just needs to present two pieces of authorized ID and only one must have the correct address. There are 39 options!

The broad options include: Debit card, mortgage statement, soup kitchen admission form.

Then there's the argument that this alteration could wind up being unconstitutional. What nonsense! The whole point of checking for ID is to make sure the person is even someone to whom such constitutional rights even apply in the first place. Do tourists have the right to vote? Of course not!

Anyone who follows campaigns closely will have heard the rumours of operatives bribing the homeless to vote for their candidate or sending undocumented voters to vote multiple times at different polling stations.

Regardless of what you think of these rumours, these sorts of things can't happen if vouching goes away. It's the foot in the door for all kinds of unscrupulous activities.

Chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand said this move could restrict aboriginals on reserves from voting. But acquiring valid ID on reserves is a problem in itself. It should be addressed directly. It certainly shouldn't be the main reason to keep vouching. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Voting is not a difficult thing to do in Canada. Simply asking voters to identify themselves isn't undemocratic. It's common sense to eliminate vouching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer

NDP ordered to stop using House funds for satellite party offices

Tories and Liberals join forces during closed-door meeting of all-party Board of Internal Economy

The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 08, 2014 7:16 AM ET| Last Updated: Apr 08, 2014 9:35 AM ET

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has said the offices are designed to help MPs with outreach to their constituents and were approved by the Commons administration.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has said the offices are designed to help MPs with outreach to their constituents and were approved by the Commons administration. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

The NDP has been ordered to stop using parliamentary resources to pay for staff in satellite party offices in Quebec and Saskatchewan.

Sources say the board of internal economy, the all-party body that sets the rules for MPs' spending, has decided that the House of Commons must be the ordinary place of employment for anyone whose salary is paid by the Commons; they cannot work in offices leased or owned by a political party.

The NDP has been operating two satellite party offices, staffed by people on the Commons payroll, in Quebec and has just opened a third in Saskatchewan.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has said the offices are designed to help MPs with outreach to their constituents and were approved by the Commons administration.

Tories, Liberals voted to 'immediately end the practice'

He has not explained why such an office would be necessary in Saskatchewan, where the NDP has no MPs, or why the job posting for that office listed campaign experience as an asset.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals have complained that the setup amounts to Parliament paying for partisan NDP field organizers.

Three Conservative and one Liberal members of the board voted Monday to immediately end the practice, said sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to say anything publicly before the board's decision is announced Tuesday.

The two NDP members defended the offices but were out-voted.

New Democrats took to Twitter late Monday to argue that rival parties are changing the rules retroactively only because they're miffed they hadn't thought to set up satellite offices themselves.

Noting that the new rules would only apply until the next election in 2015, they predicted that the Tories and Liberals would set up their own offices immediately afterward.

NDP may be asked to pay back funds

However, sources said the new rules were put in place only for the remainder of the current parliamentary session as an interim measure meant to put an immediate stop to the practice.

Stricter, permanent rules are expected to be adopted after Commons administration finishes a thorough investigation of the NDP's satellite offices, they said.

Among other things, the board may yet decide to demand that the NDP reimburse the Commons for the resources used to staff the offices.

While the NDP has claimed the offices were approved by the administration, sources said Commons clerk Audrey O'Brien told the board that was not true.

The board also decided Monday to send more details to Elections Canada about partisan flyers sent by New Democrat MPs, using their free parliamentary mailing privileges, into four ridings that were engaged in byelections last fall.

Chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand last week said that such missives do not constitute a campaign expense as long as they were mailed before the byelections were called -- which Mulcair insists they were, although some arrived in mailboxes after the writs had been dropped.

However, Conservative and Liberal board members believe Mayrand may think differently when he realizes how blatantly partisan the mailings were.

Saskatchewan Conservative caucus chair Randy Hoback wrote to the speaker to follow up on his original complaint over the out-of-town outposts.

"I am particularly alarmed," he noted in the letter, "that rather than responding thoughtfully or cautiously to these concerns, the NDP has indicated publicly that they plan to expand their program

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-ordered-to-stop-using-house-funds-for-satellite-party-offices-1.2601998?cmp=rss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to get rid of vouching, then I think most Canadians would support it if you first address the problem of getting ID on reserves. It's a long standing problem that has gone ignored by successive governments.

Having said that, the proposed changes to the Elections Act go far beyond banning vouching. Using the vouching issue as a way to advocate for supporting the proposed changes (especially the bit about bribing homeless people to vote your way) - is the political equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every resident (of Ontario at least) has the option of obtaining a government ID card for $35 that is sufficient as Government issued ID. Available to all residents over the age of 16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer

If you want to get rid of vouching, then I think most Canadians would support it if you first address the problem of getting ID on reserves. It's a long standing problem that has gone ignored by successive governments.

Having said that, the proposed changes to the Elections Act go far beyond banning vouching. Using the vouching issue as a way to advocate for supporting the proposed changes (especially the bit about bribing homeless people to vote your way) - is the political equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig.

the ability to get this identification is already there, the problem is getting people to obtain them.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032374/1100100032378

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032424/1100100032428

http://www.ontario.ca/government/indian-status-and-identification-cards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without vouching you could show up at the polls with a Canadian Passport, Birth Certificate, SIN card and Health Card and be refused voting.

IMO vouching is more about affirming "this is where I live and I have a right to vote in this riding" than I have absolutely no ID and want to vote. I had to vouch for my wife in the last election because we had recently moved, hadn't changed our DLs to Ontario yet and she hadn't saved any mail that would qualify for proof of residence in the riding.

But as JO pointed out... vouching is the tip of the iceberg on this bill and is being floated out front because it is perhaps easier to draw support from everyone with a drivers license with a current address on it who it won't affect.

With the exception of CPC supporters, who would ride the Harper ship to the bottom of the sea if told, this law has no support. Not from electoral officers, experts, academics or the majority of Canadians. The fact hat Poilievre sought no input from outside the CPC on writing this act, has dismissed every criticism, even from experts called to testify in the commons committee, and will not consider amendments is telling of his attitude and the purposes behind it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer

j.k. you said "With the exception of CPC supporters, who would ride the Harper ship to the bottom of the sea if told, this law has no support. "
So I guess those against it could be said to be willing to ride their ships (NDP & Liberal) to the bottom of the same sea? :icon_anal:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have noted on here previously I generally support Harper even though I find his treatment of Labor during the AC and CPC issues to be awful. As long as I thought he was a good steward of the economy I was a supported.

The Fair Elections Act may have pushed me away though. It seems very heavy handed and unneeded. Vouching is not a problem. There is not wide spread fraud.

I am also very sick of these hyper partisan (from all parties) idiots like Pierre Pollivere who give Bean's favorite Iraqi spokesperson a run for their money when doling out the BS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old wine, new bottles.

I see the Republican Party in the United States is teaching Mr Harper some lessons in how to win elections when unpopular. Make it difficult for those who would vote Democratic to vote.

The question is, "Why now?", and why Harper? It may be a good idea, but what's driving it?

The idea of vetting voters prior to allowing them to vote is an age-old, tired political technique. Now we see Mr Harper resorting to it, as if we weren't intelligent enough to see through the plan. Some of us watch what's going on with the Republican Party south of us. It reminds me of Jean Chretien in his darker moments as a political leader.

The notion of "voter ID" has run rampant through Republican Party state governments in attempts to disenfranchise Democratic voters, the age-old and tired justification being prevention of "voter fraud".

The occasional voter who may not have the right papers is not where a fraud is being perpretrated.

States with Voter ID laws (http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx):

i-64nTSkf-L.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To vote, one must have a phote ID.

To ensure that the person that is presenting said ID, one must compare that person to the ID.

If that person is wearing some sort of "mask" and refuses to show one's face to verify that it is indeed that person on the ID, then either have a private room to verify the ID or you cannot vote.

Plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

j.k. you said "With the exception of CPC supporters, who would ride the Harper ship to the bottom of the sea if told, this law has no support. "

So I guess those against it could be said to be willing to ride their ships (NDP & Liberal) to the bottom of the same sea? :icon_anal:

Of course there are die-hard NDPers and Liberals... but that has nothing to do with my statement for a lack of support on this bill.

Note chockalicious' statement. A small "c" conservative who doesn't like it and is reconsidering his vote. Gives you an idea of the lack of support for this law. So few people who have really looked at it like it. And the ones who do like it don't care what was in it, they are CPC all the way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer

It is brilliant politics but bad governing or so the following story concludes, and it might surprise you but I agree. I do also feel that you should have to show some form of ID when voting.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/unfair-elections-act-targets-the-youth-trudeau-wants-and-harper-fears/article17539234/

Jonathan Scott

‘Unfair Elections Act’ targets the youth Trudeau wants and Harper fears

Jonathan Scott

Contributed to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Mar. 18 2014, 10:18 AM EDT

Last updated Wednesday, Mar. 19 2014, 9:36 AM EDT Getting youth to vote – or not to – is at the centre of two parties’ political strategy heading into a 2015 federal election.

At the Liberal convention in Montréal, President Barack Obama’s campaign gurus were out in full force. Indeed, one tweeted, “A true honor and pleasure to address #lib2014 today. Canada, you’ve got something special in @JustinTrudeau.”

The NDP says the Harper government's overhaul of election rules could help the Tories in the next election. The Fair Elections Act would raise donation limits, make fraud more difficult and give the elections commissioner more power.Beyond the love-in (and American spelling), what’s clear is that Justin Trudeau’s team of brilliant young parents wants to replicate the Obama magic in Canada. They want to get a Canadian version of Obama’s coalition – ethnic minorities, women and youth – to volunteer and to vote for Team Trudeau.

That means inspiring the younger generation to actually go out to vote. My generation has a well-documented case of voter apathy. However, if there’s anyone who can inspire youth to vote, it’s Mr. Trudeau. The guy combines celebrity with politician in a potent way. At the recent Montreal policy convention, the screaming selfie-seekers were like nothing I’ve ever seen in Canadian politics.

And yet, with the Fair Elections Act, the Harper Conservatives seem to be making it even harder to get youth to vote.

The changes to advertising will negatively effect youth voter turnout. The Act seeks to strip Elections Canada of the ability to advertise and promote voting, including to young people. Pierre Pollievere, the Minister of Democratic Reform, suggests schools and parents are sufficient to encourage youth to vote, apparently missing the basic reality of low youth voter turnout.

Youth clearly need all the encouragement to vote that’s possible – from informational sessions on campus to advertising online and on TV. We need more advertising and campaigning from Elections Canada, not less. When it comes to encouraging youth to vote, more really is more if you want to be successful.

So, taking away the ability of Elections Canada to encourage voter participation, especially to youth, works in favour of the incumbent Conservative party – with its bedrock support from seniors who do get out to vote of their own accord – and not in the interests of fair elections that engage the most number of citizens to exercise their franchise.

It’s disgraceful what the government is doing here; it’s brilliant what the Conservative Party is doing here.

Leaked memos show that the Conservative Party’s operatives plan to exploit every benefit of incumbency. Using the government to sell the party is nothing new; violating the spirit of fair, free elections with the highest possible voter turnout is a new, dastardly low the Conservative government is no doubt importing from the Tea Party renegades in the United States.

In the U.S., conservatives realized changing ethnic demographics are their electoral Achilles heel. So, state houses across their country are making it harder for ethnic voters to actually vote by restricting ID requirements, which the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented and opposed from Wisconsin to South Carolina. The Act, dubbed the “Unfair Elections Act” by the NDP, seems to being doing much the same thing by making it impossible for people without ID to vote, even if vouched for by a qualified elector, and by taking away the election agency’s ability to advertise to encourage youth to vote.

Team Trudeau wants youth to vote in record numbers because youth seem to be far more progressively minded than older voters but also because they believe Justin Trudeau is uniquely positioned to inspire youth to vote for him.

The Conservatives are on to Mr. Trudeau’s strategy, and so they’re taking away Elections Canada’s ability to help Justin Trudeau by encouraging youth to vote. Of course, Elections Canada advertising is neutral and non-partisan, but encouraging youth to vote, in the Conservative outlook, is the same thing as helping Team Trudeau. In their conspiratorial, Sun News-style worldview of constant victimization by so-called elites, Conservatives seem to truly believe Elections Canada is out to get them.

It’s a sick irony that a junior cabinet minister is responsible for limiting the means to encourage youth to vote. But it should come as no surprise from a prime minister hell-bent on winning a fourth term against a youthful and youth-inspiring opponent.

The consequences of this limitation around promoting elections go far beyond a wrinkle in Team Trudeau’s youth election strategy: failing to combat a generation’s apathy now will only exacerbate declining voter turnout later on in life.

That’s yet another reason why we can’t let this Act pass, for the sake of my generation’s current and future participation in elections.

Jonathan Scott is a PR consultant at Key Gordon Communications, and a Liberal political activist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer

Further, it would seem to me that the following recommendation would serve the purpose of reducing the amount of vouchering and enhance the process.

THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF CANADA’S RESPONSE Elections Canada agrees that further reducing the number of voters who rely on registration (975,000, or eight percent of voters during the 2011 general election) and vouching procedures (120,000, or one percent) on election-day in order to vote would help reduce administrative errors. For 2015, we plan to conduct pre-election registration drives aimed at groups with low registration rates, such as students. We will assess these plans in light of the reviewer’s recommendations. In April 2012, Elections Canada launched a new online voter registration service that enables electors to confirm that they are properly registered on the voters list and to update their address if they have moved. During an election, electors will be able to update their address only if they have moved within their electoral district. Constraints in the Canada Elections Act, related to documentary proof of identification prevent us from allowing electors to update their address if they moved between ridings or to register as new electors. In 2010, we recommended changes to the legislation4 that would allow us to offer and promote a full online voter registration service. Implementing this change would reduce the number of voters needing to register on election-day as well as improve the quality of the voters lists
Registration officers are currently provided a voters list covering the voting site, which usually contains several polling divisions. We will consider extending this to the electoral district level but this may not be feasible until the new model is in place, when the national voters list would be accessible in real-time via technology implemented at the polls. For 2015, we plan to revise our voter identification policy to permit the Voter Information Card (VIC) to be used as proof of address for all electors when it is accompanied by another approved piece of identification. We will also look at simplifying the list of acceptable pieces of identification. These measures should improve access, simplify the process for electors and election workers and reduce the requirement for vouching. ____________ 4Responding to Changing Needs, recommendation I.10, “Registration of Electors by Internet”. This recommendation was supported by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs


[PDF]
Compliance Review: Final Report and Recommendations

www.elections.ca/res/cons/comp/crfr/pdf/crfr_e.pdf‎

The Canada Elections Act provides a wide range of procedural safeguards ... recruitment; training; updating the list of electors; and historical, cultural and jurisdictional factors ...... and to a corresponding elector with ID (voucher) who must be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A photo ID....Wish list.

The fact that your name is on the electoral list, you should have a way to identify that you are indeed that person. Any government approved ID is acceptable. I would like to have those approved ID's having a photo included with it. I think that a government photo ID be free to all citizens / landed immigrants. One can limit the freeness to once every 10 years to avoid excessive abuse by a few.

IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer

Harper tells Mulcair: 'Do right thing' and pay back $3M owed taxpayers

Credits: REUTERS/Blair Gable

JESSICA HUME | QMI AGENCY

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper urged NDP Leader Tom Mulcair to "do the right thing" and reimburse taxpayers roughly $3 million that may have been spent illegally.

"I have noted that the NDP leader has not repaid the taxpayers of Canada for $3 million used for parliamentary offices (outside) Ottawa, contrary to the rules of the House of Commons," Harper said in French during question period Wednesday. "It is time for the NDP leader to do the right thing."

The House of Commons board of internal economy is investigating the official Opposition after receiving complaints about NDP satellite offices in Quebec and Saskatchewan being staffed with employees on the House of Commons payroll.

House rules dictate that a political party must pay for partisan work itself, not with House of Commons resources.

The NDP said its Quebec offices were being used to service its 57 MPs in that province and explained its satellite office in Saskatchewan as a means of conducting outreach.

The board issued a cease and desist order to the NDP and adopted a provisional amendment to the bylaws governing MPs in the meantime.

"No employee of a member of House officer may have as their regular place of work any space in premises owned, leased or under the effective control of a political party," the provisional amendment reads.

That amendment is set to expire in 2015, which the NDP says proves the investigation is a partisan attack. NDP sources also say the party had cleared plans for these satellite offices with the clerk of the House of Commons, who told them to "go ahead."

The NDP will have to shut its satellite offices Monday.

If the board - which operates in camera and includes members from all parties - finds the NDP did breach House rules, the party could be on the hook to repay roughly $3 million.

The NDP has called the investigation a partisan attack and said the board of internal economy should be disbanded.

"We've long been saying that we must remove the board of internal economy's powers and create an independent body to investigate MPs' expenses," NDP House leader Peter Julian said in a statement issued earlier this week.

Conservative MP Randy Hoback - who complained to the board about the NDP's Saskatchewan office - said he doesn't believe the party was doing outreach work, but rather that they're trying to increase its electoral chances in Saskatoon's new ridings.

Echoing Harper, Hoback said taxpayers deserve to be repaid.

"The fact is they've been caught," he told QMI Agency. "The reality is they owe the taxpayers $3 million and the NDP is scratching its head on how to pay that back."

Hoback said there are already 14 constituency offices in Saskatchewan providing services to constituents there.

"For them to come in and duplicate that would be a waste of taxpayer money," he said. "Now, if they're not duplicating that then they're not doing the functions of a constituency office and thus that means they're political, which means they should pay for the work, not taxpayers."

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/04/20140409-173850.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Coyne: Very little 'fair' about how Conservatives are pushing controversial Elections Act

It is coarse to imagine the Conservatives are conspiring to fix the next election, in plain sight of everyone. If you were bent on suppressing the opposition vote, evading spending limits, and otherwise participating in electoral fraud, presumably you would not take the trouble to advertise this in legislation.

On the other hand, if they are not up to no good, they are doing their best to convince people they are. The secrecy surrounding the Fair Elections Act, the failure to consult in advance of its drafting, the curtailment of debate after, the supreme indifference to legitimate criticism, all under the chilling oversight of the Minister for Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre, would be enough to make anyone nervous.

More troubling has been the minister’s failure to explain why the bill’s most controversial measures were deemed necessary — what problems they would solve — and why they should have diverged so sharply from what every expert in the field has recommended, or from existing practice, in Canada and abroad.

Most everyone who looks, for example, would say Canada has a problem with falling turnout: yet the bill, with its ban on vouching and proscription on official efforts to encourage people to vote, would almost certainly depress turnout further. Unable to persuade witnesses to co-operate in the robocalls affair, Elections Canada had asked for more powers to investigate: to compel evidence from witnesses, but also to demand parties turn over records such as receipts for expenses and the phone numbers of those called. Not only was every one of these requests denied, but the agency found itself bound, gagged and cut in two.

No evidence has been advanced why spending and contribution limits needed to be raised, why expenses incurred to raise funds from previous donors should be exempt, or how Elections Canada will be able to ensure those fundraising calls are not used to promote the party or get out the vote. No one asked for these provisions, just as no one recommended that the winning party in each riding be allowed to install its partisans, rather than Elections Canada officials, as poll supervisors: What could possibly be the justification for this?

Whatever the intent of these provisions, their effect is clear. In almost every case, it is to benefit the ruling party: the party that those least likely to vote are least likely to vote for; the party that raises the most funds, with the longest donor list; the party with the most seats, and the most polls to supervise. And, it must be said, the party with the most extensive history of being investigated by Elections Canada. Perhaps the suspicions these arouse are unfounded; if so, the government has made no effort to dispel them.

Quite the contrary. In the face of the most comprehensive panning from expert witnesses of any bill in living memory, the minister has simply retreated further into his talking points. The ban on vouching is needed to prevent fraud — though there is no evidence of fraud taking place. The power to compel evidence is something not even the police have — though it is common in other regulatory agencies. When the author of a report on irregularities in the last election, Harry Neufeld, complained that Mr. Poilievre was misrepresenting his findings, he was told he did not understand his own report. When two former Elections Commissioners, in charge of investigations, testified they were quite independent of the Chief Electoral Officer, they were assured they were not.

sheila-fraser.jpg?w=620&h=465

Unable to answer its critics’ objections, the government has lately shifted into attacking their character. Mr. Poilievre told a Senate committee Tuesday the CEO, Marc Mayrand, is motivated by nothing but a desire for “more power, a bigger budget and less accountability.” The former Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, other government members hinted, was on the take: hadn’t she accepted payment to sit as co-chair of Elections Canada’s Advisory Board? The board’s other members, among them some of the country’s most widely respected political and legal figures, were dismissed by a Tory senator as “celebrities.” The provincial chief electoral officers, political scientists, law professors and other specialists who have denounced the bill were derided as “self-styled” experts. The only people, it would seem, with the integrity or the expertise to comment on the bill are the people who have drafted it to their own advantage.

There’s precedent for this, sadly. It is of a piece with the government’s previous attacks on the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, and the current Auditor General, Michael Ferguson. Like the CEO, their criticisms were dismissed as incompetent at best, partisan at worst — though, like the CEO, both were appointed by this government. This is more than a baseless smear on three conscientious public servants. It is an assault on their independence and authority as officers of Parliament.

More power, a bigger budget and less accountability

But we are into new territory with the attacks on Elections Canada, as recent statements from within the party would seem to confirm. A Conservative MP toldThe Hill Times the severing of the agency’s investigations branch was likely in retaliation for its handling of the robocalls matter. Stephen Harper’s former communications director, Geoff Norquay, suggested it was “vengeance” for its successful prosecution of the party in the “in-and-out” affair. The Prime Minister himself, asked in Parliament about the bill’s effect on Elections Canada’s independence, mused about the need to ensure the agency is “held accountable for its actions.”

So that is the issue. That’s what the Fair Elections Act is about. With an election less than 18 months away, the government has declared war on the organization in charge of running it. It believes, or wants the public to believe, that Elections Canada is biased against it, and needs to be reined in. And its sole evidence for this extraordinary charge is the agency’s tendency to catch Conservatives in its dragnet. The recklessness — with the facts, with reputations, with the public’s faith in the democratic process — is astounding. The odds of a crisis are growing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also find it disconcerting that a paper like the Calgary Herald can run four editorials about the Quebec election campaign and outcome, and can't even once comment on the so-called Fair Elections Act. Some people in the West are so ready to talk about how others are damaging Canada, but really should be looking in the mirror - you elected Harper, and he has done much harm to the federation.

If you wonder why Justin Trudeau continues to ride high in the polls despite his inexperience and petty indiscretions, I submit to you that it is not because of him, but in spite of him. When Trudeau wins, the man most responsible for electing him will be Stephen Harper, who is as much a threat to Canada as was Pauline Marois.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer
Guest longtimer

You also said,

Some people in the West are so ready to talk about how others are damaging Canada, but really should be looking in the mirror - you elected Harper, and he has done much harm to the federation.

Yet the 4 western provinces only elected 69 PCs but your fav. Ontario sat 72, so when pointing the finger of blame you would be wise to remember that 3 fingers point back at you. :icon_anal:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/senatorsmembers/house/partystandings/standings-e.htm

Regarding the main issue, I wonder what the demographics show re the use of vouchering in each Province / Territory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also said,

Yet the 4 western provinces only elected 69 PCs but your fav. Ontario sat 72, so when pointing the finger of blame you would be wise to remember that 3 fingers point back at you. :icon_anal:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/senatorsmembers/house/partystandings/standings-e.htm

Regarding the main issue, I wonder what the demographics show re the use of vouchering in each Province / Territory

The difference here is that it won't be repeated. The media here, both small c conservative and progressive, actually analyzes and criticizes the government's actions, as it does the provincial Liberals or our mayors (see not only Ford, but the Star's war on the corrupt mayor Brampton, front page, above the fold, again today.) People here have wised up to Harper and his dangerously skewed anti-democratic tendencies, unlike many Albertans who seem to be ready to excuse almost anything done by a native son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...