Robocon: Court finds fraud; Council of Canadians should appeal

The court yesterday found that fraud had been used in the May 2011 election in 6 ridings in an attempt to suppress the vote, as this article from the Globe & Mail sets out:

However, “fraud” did occur – particularly in Guelph, Ont. – and targeted people who had previously expressed an interest in voting for anyone but the Conservatives, Justice Richard G. Mosley wrote in his ruling. But there was little evidence the robo-call efforts actually kept anyone away from the polls or that the robo-calls had any “major impact on the credibility of the vote,” he ruled.

The source of the robo-calls was “likely” a Conservative database, accessed by a person unknown to the court, he ruled. But the calls’ impacts were “thinly scattered” outside of Guelph, and “the scale of the fraud has to be kept in perspective,” the justice wrote.

“Had I found that any of the successful electoral candidates or their agents were implicated in any way in the fraudulent activity, I would not have hesitated to exercise my discretion to annul the result,” the justice wrote. “... No such evidence was led.”

The calls nonetheless struck at the integrity of the electoral process by attempting to dissuade voters from casting ballots for their preferred candidates,” the justice wrote, saying such a form of voter suppression was “largely unknown in this country” until 2011.

Both sides saw good news in the case. The Council of Canadians said it was considering an appeal to the Supreme Court, noting a “judge found that the election was marred by widespread fraudulent activities.”

Let's hope that the Council of Canadians does appeal the decision.

We need to fight tooth and nail to preserve our democracy, no matter who tries to block us.

And the judge went on to say this (quoted in The Council of Canadians website):

Judge Mosley himself praised the eight applicants for their virtue, while chastising the Conservative MPs. "It has seemed to me that the applicants sought to achieve and hold the high ground of promoting the integrity of the electoral process while the respondent MPs engaged in trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits."

And Mosley even made special note of their shameful obstructionist tactics, stating, "Despite the obvious public interest in getting to the bottom of the allegations, the CPC made little effort to assist with the investigation at the outset despite early requests. I note that counsel for the CPC was informed while the election was taking place that the calls about polling station changes were improper. While it was begrudgingly conceded during oral argument that what occurred was "absolutely outrageous", the record indicates that the stance taken by the respondent MPs from the outset was to block these proceedings by any means."

What an indictment of the willingness of those MPs to get to the bottom of the attack on our democratic right to vote.

The Mulcair Envelope: Questions that will haunt the NDP Leader

The Mulcair envelope issues

Ottawa is aswirl with rumours about breaches of ethical rules by our esteemed senators, and a subcurrent is now starting, egged on by a desperate Conservative Party that wishes to change the channel and/or deflect criticism.

Three interesting articles by journalists deal with the possible cash bribe that was offered to Thomas Mulcair, the rookie member of the Quebec legislature, some 17 years ago, by a former Laval mayor now charged with corruption (including gangsterism).

Apart from the fact that the apparently conflicting statements by Thomas Mulcair will be used in thousands of TV attack ads by  Harper's neocon new Conservatives leading up to the next election, there are a few questions that Mulcair needs to consider while he decides how to handle this issue.

 

Thomas Mulcair

The 4 questions that have arisen so far are:

1.      Did Mulcair know that the white envelope offered to him by the Mayor contained a cash bribe?

2.     If he did not know that it contained cash, did he at the time of the offer suspect that it contained cash and was meant as a bribe?

3.     If he did so suspect, why did he not report it to the authorities at the time?

4.     Why, in 2010, did he apparently accuse another rookie member, who was also offered an envelope by the same mayor, of failing to report the offer to the authorities (even though Mulcair did not report the offer made to him)?

The first 2 questions are designed to clear up what seem to be conflicting facts in press reports. The third question deals with Mulcair's non-reporting of the incident for many years.

The last question raises the issue of possible hypocrisy by Mulcair (the pot calling the kettle black).

In Thursday's Globe & Mail, Daniel Leblanc writes about the offer to Mulcair (my underlining and bolding):

Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair refused an envelope that may have contained cash from the mayor of Laval, Que., in 1994 but discussed the matter with law-enforcement authorities only 17 years later.

The incident raises questions about the delay of the disclosure until 2011 but also Mr. Mulcair’s statement the previous year to reporters that he never saw envelopes of cash in the office of long-time Laval mayor Gilles Vaillancourt..

Mr. Mulcair acknowledged in a statement on Thursday that he met with Mr. Vaillancourt the year he was first elected as an MNA but that he discussed the meeting with authorities only two years ago.

“In early 2011, I met with the police in order to help in their investigation. I gave to them my account of a meeting I had with Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt dating back to 1994. As is indicated, I effectively and immediately ended the meeting with Mr. Vaillancourt,” Mr. Mulcair said.

The statement corroborated a story in Montreal newspaper La Presse that Mr. Mulcair told police that he felt the envelope likely contained cash and that he had refused it.

Further on, Leblanc writes:

Mr. Mulcair was asked at a news conference in 2010 whether he had ever been offered or seen “envelopes of cash” in Mr. Vaillancourt’s office. He answered, “No.”

 The statement is accurate in that Mr. Mulcair apparently did not see the contents of the envelope that Mr. Vaillancourt had offered.

Leblanc writes this about Mulcair's concern about another member of the legislature:

In his 2010 comments, Mr. Mulcair criticized Serge Ménard, a former Bloc Québécois MP and Parti Québécois MNA who had acknowledged to the media that he was offered an envelope from Mr. Vaillancourt.

 While Mr. Ménard said he refused the offer, Mr. Mulcair raised questions about his failure to report the matter to authorities, given that he went on to become a prominent PQ minister.

“One thing preoccupies me with that is that a person who went on to become justice minister and public security minister felt that he couldn’t do anything about it,” Mr. Mulcair said at the time.

He added that when someone raised a case of potential wrongdoing with him, “I invited the person to go to the police.”

It is not clear from the above quote as to exactly when, in Mulcair's opinion, his fellow legislature member should have told the police about the mayor and the envelope. Should he have done it soon after the envelope was offered by the mayor? If so, why would this duty not also apply to Mulcair? Or should he have done it as soon as he was appointed justice minister? And why just then?

This issue will not go away in a hurry, and the Harper Tory attack ads will hurt Mulcair and his party unless he clarifies issues, especially the nagging question why he never told any authority (the Speaker of the Legislature; the RCMP; the provincial police; the Premier; whoever ...) about his concerns about 'the envelope'.

Prime Minister Harper leaves country while Ottawa burns

The Senate under siege

With the press baying at the prime minister, calling for answers to serious questions about a possible deal with a senator accused of fudging expenses, PM Stephen Harper decided to leave Canada and visit South America. Resolute in his own righteousness, Harper refused to allow "distractions" to prevent his government from concentrating on the economy.

Despite an openly rebellious crowd of journalists, who felt they had been unceremoniously brushed aside while raising serious questions about serious issues, Harper refused to address the issue which is tearing his party apart, and consuming Ottawa:

Harper left on a four-day trade mission to South America, just hours after he delivered a televised speech to Tory MPs and senators on Parliament Hill.

Harper said he was “not happy” with the actions of some senators and with the conduct of his own office.

He promised to accelerate Senate reform, “uphold a culture of accountability” and not be sidelined by “distractions” that get in the way of his main priorities, such as job creation.

But the prime minister did not explain — or apologize for — the actions of his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who resigned Sunday over controversy from his decision to secretly give Sen. Mike Duffy a personal $90,000 cheque to repay his ineligible housing expenses.

 

The Duffy Deal

That left his second-in-command, MP Baird, to rise in Parliament and answer questions about any deal that might have been cut:

One after another in the House of Commons, New Democrat and Liberal MP’s fired off questions to learn more about the secret payment between Wright and Duffy, who resigned from Tory caucus last week.

Among them: Why did Wright decide to do this favor for Duffy? Did the ruling Tories “whitewash” a Senate report on Duffy’s expenses so it would not be critical? What did Harper know about the deal and when did he know it? Is it true that Wright used Harper’s former special counsel and legal adviser, Benjamin Perrin, to draw up a letter of understanding with Duffy in February? Did Wright break the law by giving Duffy the money?

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair asked the government to bring in the RCMP to conduct an investigation, while other New Democrats urged the governing Tories to end a “cover-up.”

“Was taxpayers’ money used to bankroll Senategate?” asked Mulcair.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said Harper had lost his “moral compass.”

“The prime minister’s right-hand man secretly paid a parliamentarian $90,000 to obstruct an audit,” said Trudeau in the Commons. “Canadians deserve better. They deserve actual transparency and accountability.”

Baird consulted a piece of paper in his hand before carefully avoiding any of the questions by giving the same, carefully crafted non-answer:

Throughout question period, Baird recited the same answer:

“The government is being very clear that the prime minister was not aware of this payment until media reports surfaced last week.”

As well, despite media reports that a written agreement was prepared for the Wright-Duffy deal, Baird said it’s “our understanding there is no document.”

Baird's answer has opened up a chink in the Harper government's stalling tactics. 
 

What? Me worried?

By carefully stating that it's "our understanding that there is no document" capturing any deal with Senator Duffy, Baird and Harper have chosen to directly contradict reports by CTV that there is an agreement, and moreover, that the agreement was reduced to writing.

Now the focus will shift to whether (1) an unwritten deal was cut (by whom? About what?) and (2) whether there is a draft agreement, outline of principles, list of points, or signed agreement capturing the terms of the donation to the hapless Senator.

With Harper out of the country for four days, we can expect this say-nothing, deny-any-agreement stalling tactic to fray at its seams with unseemly haste.

There are just too many people involved in this sad spectacle for the lid to be kept on for long, and any attempt to clamp the lid shut using the Senate Committee will not wash:

Last week, the Conservative leader in the Senate, Sen. Marjory LeBreton, said the government planned to bring a motion Tuesday night to send Duffy’s audit back to the committee — the same committee that faces allegations of political interference after closing the case on Duffy’s spending.

Expect the PM to return head of his planned time, to take personal control of the explanations.

Senator Duffy Affair: An explosive sentence

Senator Duffy

I have underlined and bolded an explosive sentence in the Andrea Janus article about the CTV report on the agreement dealing with the payment to Senator Duffy of an amount of $90,000 regarding expenses he claimed.

Remember that one sentence as this affair starts unfolding!

Here it is:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former special counsel and legal adviser worked on the legal deal between Nigel Wright and Sen. Mike Duffy’s lawyer that called for Wright to help Duffy pay off $90,000 in invalid expense claims, CTV News has learned.

Sources told CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife that back in February, Benjamin Perrin helped draft the letter of understanding that called for Duffy to publicly declare that he would repay the money. In return, sources say, Wright would give a personal cheque to Duffy to cover the $90,000. Sources say the agreement also stipulated that a Senate investigation into expense claims would go easy on Duffy.

The Prime Minister’s Office insists that neither Perrin nor Wright told Harper about the payout to Duffy or about any aspects of the secret arrangement.

The PMO also declined to release the letter of agreement, saying it is now in the hands of Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, who is investigating Wright’s $90,000 cheque to Duffy.

Dawson’s investigation could take a year or more.

This thing is getting mighty interesting.

The most plausible reason for the NDP loss in BC

Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion in BC

I think Gordon Gibson's take in the Globe & Mail on the vote-shifting caused by the position-shifting of Dix in the last week of the campaign is the most plausible explanation of why the polls were so different from the actual results:

The NDP looked way ahead before voters went to the polls in British Columbia. Then it all changed. Why? One word: “Pipelines.” Or more precisely, two: “Kinder Morgan.”

Until two weeks ago it was the election of the NDP’s Adrian Dix to lose. 

Then he got greedy. Worried about an emerging Green threat, Mr. Dix sought to pre-empt the party by going greenier-than-thou, specifically by promising to ban significantly greater tanker traffic out of the port of Vancouver, which would doom the export of Alberta oil to the Pacific. 

This was a stunning turnabout on a clear promise to withhold judgement until the pipeline application had been filed with details made available...

The Kinder Morgan flip-flop sent a message that the NDP would prefer the enviro-left to the development-right. The voters got the message, judged that the economy would suffer and made their choice.

Of course the enviro-left will reject that thought. An NDP representative commenting on the results actually said that people who fail to achieve their ends via elections will gain them in other ways and referenced the “War in the Woods,” a famous BC environmental confrontation. We shall see.

This framing of the BC NDP as preferring the "enviro-left to the development-right" is a good summary of the probable result of Dix's desperate attempt to rob votes from the Green Party.

It is also the framing that both the Harper new Conservatives and the federal Liberal Party will use against Thomas Mulcair's NDP come 2015.

The risk for the Liberal Part of Canada is that it also goes too far in supporting those who oppose pipelines through BC as a proxy for fighting global warming, rather than supporting responsible pipeline development and tanker shipment of the Alberta oil sands bitumen.

The Liberal Party is already dangerously close to sliding down the slippery slope that Dix's BC NDP rushed down, with the same consequences possible.

The 2015 battle will be about the economy, because the world recovery is still weak, given the unwise austerity programs in the EU and the budget-slashing Republican Party's control of the House in the USA.

The Harper Government lacks a strategic vision for Canada's oil industry

400 parts per million ...

Those Albertans who have voted for Harper's Conservatives in election after election must be starting to wonder whether Stephen Harper and his Cabinet are the best choice for their main industry: oil.

They should start to worry, because the Harper Tories are displaying yet again their incompetence when it comes to the really important issues facing Canada. They are fine for scurrying around, giving out little slices of taxpayers' money to selected micromarkets, but when it comes to the really important things, they are sadly wanting.

The Meltdown Debacle

Take the financial meltdown of 2007-2008. 

Remember how Harper and his Cabinet were whistling past the graveyard, blissfully unaware of the massive threat to our civilization's financial underpinnings posed by the bank meltdown, until the opposition parties forced them to pay attention by signing the Coalition Accord.

Now Harper and his Cabinet have once more shown their inability to understand the really critical drivers of our economy, and to play a strategic role in protecting it, and advancing it with carefully selected government actions.

Simpson's Take on Harper's Ineptitude

As Jeffrey Simpson puts it in today's Globe & Mail, Harper blew it:

The biggest proponents of bitumen oil – the Alberta Progressive Conservatives, the Harper Conservatives and the oil industry itself – have, in some respects, been the authors of these troubles. They could have acted differently and possibly made things easier. But a different course of action would have required a different strategic understanding...

 The two governments insisted that critics were ill-informed when they said bitumen is dirtier than conventional oil. They swallowed the canard that bitumen oil is somehow “ethical” because Canada has better standards than Iran and Venezuela – standing ethics on its head by defining our practices against the worst, rather than the notional idea of the best.

These self-comforting but delusional starting points led to trouble. Instead of analyzing how to deal with criticism constructively, the governments decided it was to be denounced...

Instead, the governments, presumably with the industry’s blessing, acted as if salesmanship rather than statesmanship would suffice. As such, they have contributed to this sea of troubles.

When the nation needed statesmen, Harper played to his major strength, and gave it salesmen.

And salesmen just don't have the calibre to fix the problem facing Canada's dirty tar sands.

Two fold attack on Canada's energy industry

Our major export industry is under attack from two directions: those who want to use it as an example and stop or reduce the use of fossil fuels, and those who believe that the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels pose an imminent danger to our earth and must be reduced.

Mark Jaccard from Simon Fraser is in the second camp, and is off to Europe to persuade the European Union to stick to their guns and penalize Canada's tar sand oil as unduly noxious:

One of Canada’s top environmental economists has a stark warning for the country’s oil sands producers: Find ways to dramatically cut carbon emissions or risk becoming the buggy-whip producers of the 21st century.

Simon Fraser economist Mark Jaccard has worked with governments in British Columbia, California and even Ottawa to fashion climate policies. 

But on Thursday, he said the federal government and the oil industry are embarked on a high-risk path that could leave billions of dollars in stranded assets, including pipelines like TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL...

Governments around the world will eventually move to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, he said, meaning lower demand for gasoline in transportation and lower prices for crude, as well as more pressure for producers to virtually eliminate the release of carbon dioxide from their production methods. That will create survival issues for high-cost producers like those in the oil sands.

“It really depends on your ability to innovate,” he said.

His comments come at a sensitive time for the government on the energy file. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is heading to New York next week to press the case for approval of Keystone, and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has been touring European capitals this week, making the argument in favour of developing the resource, one of the largest crude oil reserves in the world.

Dr. Jaccard joined a dozen scientists and researchers Thursday in releasing a letter to Mr. Oliver, arguing that Ottawa’s support for oil sands expansion and the pipelines needed to carry the crude to market is inconsistent with the stated goal of the Harper government and other G20 countries to prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius. The economist is travelling to Europe on Friday with former NASA scientist James Hansen to rebut the arguments that Mr. Oliver made during his week-long tour.

Voters in Alberta should pay attention to the passages above that I have underlined. They spell out an existential threat to the very heart of Alberta's and Saskatchewan's heavy oil industry.

The Measurements of Evil

The spat right now between Harper's government and the EU revolves around a simple question: Is the heavy oil from Canada's tar sands worse than the oil that can be obtained from other sources, because the whole process of manufacture (from well to wheel, as it is put) and refinement results in more greenhouse gas emissions.

There are several ways to calculate the all-in greenhouse gas emissions of refined crude from tar sands and  shale deposits, depending on what you include in the calculation.

Here's a diagram of the Congressional Research Service's from well to wheel  factors:

 

From Well to Wheel

Canada's asleep-at-the-switch Harper government is arguing that the calculation should  be made for all processes involved, including transportation. Our heavy oil comes out a bit better if we do that, as this article in the Globe & Mail spells out:

Transportation is a hot point in the carbon debate because oil sands supporters want Alberta's production compared to other oil after transportation is taken into account. Shipping oil by tanker, for example, jacks up emissions. Oil used in France may have originated in Africa. Oil burned in Colorado may have been extracted in Venezuela. Oil sands proponents argue the emissions tied to shipping crude to refineries and then to consumers must be considered when comparing emissions. 

Pipeline companies also use the argument when lobbying for support of their proposals and Alberta's oil sands. Trans- Canada, citing the U.S. Department of State, notes the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline will offset as many as 200 ocean tankers a year. This equates to lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 19 million tonnes. Using trains to move oil, TransCanada notes, produces three times as much greenhouse gas as pipelines.

The Failure of the Harper Government

This strategic challenge facing our oil industry is not new, and was easily predictable given events over the past decade or more.

However, Canada's lack of preparedness for this major threat is directly the result of the Harper government's inability – or wilful blindness – to manage our country's economy properly.

We as voters expect our federal government to be looking out for our country, by keeping their heads up, and preparing for challenges. Yet the Harper government seems genetically incapable of doing any really significant  long range planning.

I believe part of the reason for this blind spot in the Harper government arises from the fact that as a political party – and now as a government – the Harper Conservatives have adopted lock, stock and barrel the Tea Party DNA and the Tea Party worldview.

Harper and his Cabinet ministers do not seem to believe that our federal government has a significant role to play in protecting our economy. 

Witness the inability to act duting the financial meltdown. And witness also their dangerous reduction of the revenues of the federal government (through the reduction in the sales tax rate, and other tax reductions). Instead of properly managing the country during good times so that it better placed to weather bad times, Harper and his Cabinet seem to lack the ability to think beyond the next few months.

Steps an Efficient Canadian Government could have taken

Could Harper have done something different to foresee the attack on our oil industry, and to prevent or reduce it?

Simpson gives some examples in his article of steps the Harper government could  have taken, but did not.

The pressure on fossil fuels due to their spewing noxious greenhouse gases into our common atmosphere is not a surprise. It has been building for a long time, is scientifically based, and will not go away, for the simple reason that our earth is indeed in peril.

If Harper and his party were not wedded to a policy of inaction (and reduction of the federal government), Canada could have played a major role in organizing worldwide acceptance of the threat posed by global warming. 
We could have lead the charge, along with the EU, to verify the scientific findings of increasing carbon dioxide (now close to 400 parts per million), and to encourage states and citizens of all states, to take meaningful steps to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel energy and switch to other less harmful energy sources. I deal with the problem posed by the 400 parts per million in our book about global warming, Obelisk Seven.

But the Harper government does not believe in a proactive government, so we did none of these things.

We could have thought through the strategic implications of the GHG emissions from our oil sands, and planned to deal with the easily foreseen problems that we now face, if our government believed that it was their role to be proactive rather than simply reactive.

As a country, we could have had a vigorous debate over the role of our tar sands, and the importance of our oil industry to the country as a whole. We could have adopted policies which internally gave the various stakeholders a more meaningful role in and stake  in that industry (including a fair sharing of the profits from exporting up to 3 million tons of bitumen oil for other nations to refine and use as fuel).

And we could have lead the world in massive, significant and effective steps to reduce GHG emissions through energy reduction methods in all spheres, both private and public.

We could also have lead in the proper measurement of the GHG emissions of various energy sources, and in the world adopting a common set of measurements so that as citizens of the world we could discuss from a shared base the price we pay for our alternative energy sources.

This would have allowed a Canadian government that focused on strategic issues (and not just petty politicking), to have adopted a measurement system that measured emissions from the well to the wheel, with scientifically verifiable means adopted to moniter emissions.

Instead we have Harper and his Cabinet acting as salesmen, selling what many view as snake oil, and demonizing those who oppose them.

What a mess!

Let's fix things up come the 2015 election, starting with a new government to replace the tired, myopic and inept Harper government.

Your Purrfect Way to Publish & Promote Your Amazon & Kindle Books

After more than a year of research, my latest book is now published as a Kindle eBook (only 99 cents) and will shortly be available as a printed soft cover book from Amazon's CreateSpace print on demand arm.

What is this book about?

I am as pleased as Punch with this contribution to the Gutenberg + Revolution.

The 466 page book has oodles of helpful hints in it (from 23 steps to publish your book on Amazon and 50 steps to have it launched as a Kindle eBook, to a fill-in-the-blanks Promotion Plan Template that let's you plan and promote your books).

What will it do for you?

This book is for you if you are a Rebel who wants to self-publish your own books through Amazon and Kindle, and to promote them. Welcome to the worldwide Gutenberg+ Revolution that Amazon and Kindle have made possible!

Your Purrfect Way Plan will show you how to: 

• easily publish your book on Amazon and as a Kindle eBook;

• promote your book by creating your very own Dream Team of advisors to help you every step of the way

• draw a mental picture of your target readers, and create their Personas (including the wild-card Rebecca Random) so that you can persuade them to buy your books;

• find and use dozens of top Forums, where readers and writers mix, so that you can build your own tribe of Fierce Supporters;

• get reviews of your books;

• use social networks (your Author Blog, your Facebook page, your Twitter Plan, your Email Plan, and other social media) easily and effectively; and

• do all this at your own speed and in the free time you have.

Read more about them at this site: https://www.amazon.com/author/glennashton

Great Gift for your Friends & Family!

If you have any family members or friends, of any age, who need a nudge to take concrete, successful steps to publish their own books, then gift them a copy of the printed soft cover Amazon edition (priced at only $14.99) and also the Kindle Ebook (cheap at only 99 cents).

The eBook lets them click on the dozens and dozens of links to websites for articles on various aspects of printing and promoting books, while the printed soft cover version is great for browsing through it (with the help of a detailed Index at the back), and making copies of Part 22, the Promotion Plan  Template.

These two books combined make wonderful birthday gifts.

They are also wonderful ways to inspire potential writers to take the plunge, become Rebels, join the Gutenberg + Revolution, and proudly publish their very own books.

And they in turn can then gift their books to their friends and family (and enemies!).

Have fun!

Glenn Ashton.

PS  Let me know via comments etc. who you gifted it to, and their progress!

Poll: Massive support for Proportional Representation

Hat tip to BluntObjects for the LeadNow poll of Canadians' views about the need to fix our broken electoral system.

The poll shows massive support by Liberals, Dippers and Greens for some form of proportional representation (the key plan of the Joyce Murray fix-it-now campaign for leadership of the Liberal Party):

 

Q: Do you support proportional representation?

Even a sizeable number of Tories think the system is broken.

The Liberal Party's pallid preferential vote system is just that: a meaningless sop to serious electoral reform.

Let's hope that our party gets its act together and starts listening – really listening – to Canadians who want an electoral system that makes votes count, reduces cross-country tensions, gives all major voices the chance to be heard in our parliament, and matches the most democractic systems in modern Western democracies.

Robocon: Guess who Sona will call as witnesses?

Michael Sona: Whom should I call?

Sona, charged with being the man behind the voter suppression robocalls in Guelph in the suspect May 2011 election, has, through his lawyer, repeated that he is not the person who set up the voter suppression calls.

His lawyer has called for a public enquiry into the mess (fat chance on that when our government is headed by a man who seems more intent on avoiding public debate of public matters).

But his lawyer also said Sona now had the chance to state his say in court.

Guess who I expect Sona to subpoena as a witness? Can you think of one? Two, perhaps? Three, even?

Sona says he did not have access to the Conservatives’ CIMS database of voter information during the campaign, and court records filed by Elections Canada show that a CIMS list was used to send out the fraudulent robocall.

Five workers on the campaign did have access: Andrew Prescott, John White, Ken Morgan, Trente Blanchette and Chris Crawford.

White and Crawford have given evidence to investigators. Prescott, Morgan and Blanchette have refused to do so. Prescott now lives in Calgary. Morgan, the campaign manager, has moved to Kuwait.

It's gonna be a long, contentious trial.

Pass the popcorn, and let's hope that the guilty party(ies) are found and punished.

Elections Canada and Robocon: The Uncompellable Three

A snippet from the report:

Inability to compel testimony

Individuals who are not suspected of wrongdoing often have relevant information that could assist in determining whether the Canada Elections Act has been contravened and shed light on the circumstances of the contravention. Often, their collaboration is critical at the early stages of an investigation. However, experience demonstrates that, for a number of reasons, these individuals may refuse to collaborate with investigators, or they may only agree to do so after considerable efforts and delays that may result in the loss of key evidence.

For example, in the case of the Guelph investigation into misleading robocalls, the publicly available court records show that at least three individuals believed to have key information refused to speak with investigators. The inability to compel testimony has been one of the most significant obstacles to effective enforcement of the Act.

Will you help us find out if there was massive fraud during the May 2011 federal electionj?

Nope. I don't want to.

Okay.

Papal PR: Welcome to St. Francis with The Sword

Pope Francis

Right from the start, Pope Francis has set a new tone in the Vatican for the Catholic Church under his papal rule. Gone are the trappings of power; in are the trappings of modesty.

The new Pope, sans Cadillac, sans fancy garb, has set out to impress upon the Catholics in his flock, and the world, his determination to steer the Church in a new direction.

The Decision: His Papal Name

In this interesting article we learn how he decided, at the last moment, on the name Francis:

Pope Francis offered intimate insights Saturday into the moments after his election, telling journalists that he was immediately inspired to take the name of St. Francis of Assisi because of his work for peace and the poor -- and that he himself would like to see "a poor church and a church for the poor."

"Let me tell you a story," Francis said in a break from his prepared text during a special gathering for thousands of journalists, media workers and guests in the Vatican's auditorium.

Francis then described how he was comforted by his friend, Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes, as it appeared the voting was going his way and it seemed "a bit dangerous" that he would reach the two-thirds necessary to be elected. "

He (Hummes) hugged me. He kissed me. He said don't forget about the poor," Francis recalled. "And that's how in my heart came the name Francis of Assisi," who devoted his life to the poor, missionary outreach and caring for God's creation.

He said some have wondered whether his name was a reference to other Francis figures, including St. Frances de Sales or even the co-founder of the pope's Jesuit order, Francis Xavier.

But he said he was inspired immediately after the election when he thought about wars.

St. Francis of Assisi, the pope said, was "the man of the poor. The man of peace. The man who loved and cared for creation -- and in this moment we don't have such a great relationship with creation. The man who gives us this spirit of peace, the poor man."

"Oh how I would like a poor church and a church for the poor," Francis said, sighing.

Ignatius of Loyola

Threads in the Tapestry that Makes this New Pope

I see four threads in the tapestry of this new Pope, two from St. Francis, one from the Jesuits, and one of his own weaving.

Threads from St. Francis of Assisi

Who was the man that the new pope has taken the name of?

St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) was the grandson of an Italian count, who fought as a soldier for Assisi, and had a vision when on the way to a war. He gave up his worldly ways and went to Rome as a pilgrim, joining the poor begging at St. Peter's Basilica.

In 1219 he visited the Sultan in Egypt, hoping to convert him and so end the Crusades.

He is the patron saint of animals and of the environment. He loved animals, and the legends talk of the animals loving him: the taming of a savage wolf, how half-frozen bees crawled to him during winter to be fed; how wild falcons flew around him; how the nightingale sang a duet with him in a grove; and how the birds listened to his sermons.

St. Francis saw humans as the stewards of God's creation and with a duty to protect nature.

The first thread from St. Francis is that of stewardship: I expect Pope Francis to speak out in defence of the earth against global warming and environmental pollution, far more than any pope has to date.

The second thread from the saint I expect to see is a duty to repair the Church.

St. Francis heard a command a command: Francis, repair my church:

St. Francis - environmentalist

His search for conversion led him to the ancient church at San Damiano. 

While he was praying there, he heard Christ on the crucifix speak to him, "Francis, repair my church." Francis assumed this meant church with a small c -- the crumbling building he was in. Acting again in his impetuous way, he took fabric from his father's shop and sold it to get money to repair the church. His father saw this as an act of theft -- and put together with Francis' cowardice, waste of money, and his growing disinterest in money made Francis seem more like a madman than his son. Pietro dragged Francis before the bishop and in front of the whole town demanded that Francis return the money and renounce all rights as his heir.

The bishop was very kind to Francis; he told him to return the money and said God would provide. That was all Francis needed to hear. He not only gave back the money but stripped off all his clothes -- the clothes his father had given him -- until he was wearing only a hair shirt. In front of the crowd that had gathered he said, "Pietro Bernardone is no longer my father. From now on I can say with complete freedom, 'Our Father who art in heaven.'" Wearing nothing but castoff rags, he went off into the freezing woods -- singing.

Thread Three – God's Marine

Pope Francis is a Jesuit, one of God's Marines:

The Society of Jesus ... is a Christian male religious order of the Roman Catholic Churdh. The members are called Jesuits and are also known colloquially as "God's Marines", these being references to founder Ignatius of Loyola's military background and members' willingness to accept orders anywhere in the world and live in extreme conditions... 

Ignatius' plan of the order's organization was approved by Pope Paul III in 1540 by the bull containing the Formula of the Institute. The opening lines of this founding document would declare that the Society of Jesus was founded to "strive especially for the propagation and defense of the faith and progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine."

I expect Pope Francis to wield a sword in defence of the Church and its conservative faith. This is not a meek man who will turn his cheek against slights to that Church and its mission, as he sees it.

Thread Four: The Anti-Jesuit

Those expecting modernization of social dogma under Pope Francis will, I believe, be disappointed, because in many ways he is an anti-Jesuit:

Politically speaking, Francis is an atypical Jesuit. As a cardinal in Argentina, he led a public fight against same-sex marriage — although reportedly after failing to broker a deal supporting civil unions — and has said that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children.

One thing is certain: this new Pope will thrust the Church to the forefront in many arenas. He is decidedly not a backwaters pope.

Supporter registration deadline should be extended

Joyce Murray - contender

With the deadline to register to vote a few days away, and less than a third of the total eligible registered so far, it is imperative that the deadline be extended for a week or two weeks:

With a Thursday deadline looming, less than one third – 89,000 – of the 294,000 new Liberal members and supporters signed up since the leadership race began have registered to cast a ballot. A party official said the Liberals are “on track” to register 100,000 by Thursday.

Justin Trudeau - contender

The failure to convert large numbers of new supporters and members into registered voters, most of whom signed up for free, prompted calls from both Trudeau’s campaign team and the Ontario wing of the party to extend the voter registration deadline and make several other changes to ensure an easier registration process.

The experiment with involving more Canadians in the choice of a party leader is a magnificent vote of confidence by the Liberal Party in the principles of inclusive democracy, and we should do all that we can to ensure that it succeeds.

We achieved a remarkable success in ending up with just under 300,000 registered Supporters and party Members. This is a sign of renewed interest in the Liberal Party and a good thing for Canada.

Once we have registered every Supporter and Member who wishes to be registered, we can hold the vote. The deadlines are self-chosen, and can and should be chosen.

Once we have a new leader, I hope that she or he then works to allow Supporters as well as Members to vote for candidates running for the party to be elected as MPs. The Conservative Party in the UK has had some remarkable success with an open primary system in selecting Tory riding candidates for the election to Parliament.

Our party would receive the same benefits if we extended the primary system to the MP level.