Sheenagh McMahon Shows us How Civil Disobedience Works. You Go Girl!

This wonderful woman, Sheenagh McMahon, broke up a news conference with John Baird and Lawrence Cannon, to ask John Baird to provide a straight answer about the Contempt of Parliament charge.

Naturally he refused.

So she promises to dog him for the rest of the campaign. I hope others will join her.

This is how civil disobedience works. Nothing illegal. Harm no one.

You can also join your candidates Facebook page and continue to feed important stories, so others have a better understanding of what is going on. You may also try joining the page of the Conservative candidate and do the same thing. They'll probably eventually kick you off, but hopefully not before others checking them out read the reports.

Harper's only strategy is a campaign of fear and misdirection. We have to prove to him that we're smarter than that.

Dennis Gruending Provides a List of All Agencies Attacked by Harper Government

Dennis Gruending provides a list of all agencies destroyed and/or attacked by the Harper government. Billions for corporations, but he attacks the most vulnerable.

There was an excellent letter to the editor in the PEI Chronicle. The author is worried about poll results, but they mean very little. But they bring up some very compelling reasons to refuse this party another mandate.

This, in my mind, means that 43 per cent of those polled are: OK with voting for the first-ever government to be found in contempt of Parliament;

OK with a government that would rather give rich corporations a $6-billion tax break rather than put that money toward poor seniors, education or health care;

OK with getting rid of Helena Guergis for unproven allegations, yet does nothing to appointed senators who have been charged with election fraud;

OK with a prime minister who, when things don’t go his way, shuts down Parliament not just once but twice;

OK with a government that won more Fossil Awards for doing nothing for climate change than any other country;

OK with a prime minister who had to be forced by Parliament to share papers on Afghan prisoner exchange with other members;

OK with a government that could not win a seat on the United Nations Security Council;

OK with a prime minister who produced a booklet on how to disrupt democratic parliamentary committee meetings;

OK with a prime minister who nearly broke his arm patting himself on his back with 26million taxpayer dollars worth of ads while poor seniors wonder how to pay for their next month’s heating bill;

OK with a prime minister who has probably instructed his members that for every 50 words they speak they must include the words “opposition coalition”. This even though he himself suggested a coalition when he was in opposition.

And the list goes on. In my opinion, this means 43 per cent of those polled either don’t read the same new stories or watch the same TV I watch or there was an error in this poll.

Well said.

I Love the New Student Voting Website But There is a Problem With Compass Link

I love the new student campaign, encouraging young people to vote. It's the only way that they will get things on the table that matter to them.

There is only one problem with their video I posted yesterday. They are telling students to use the Compass survey to determine who they should be voting for.

I went to that site and all of my answers were Liberal giving high scores for their policies. Another person posted on Rabble that he did the same thing for NDP. And yet the results for us both, was that we should be voting Green.

I'm not suggesting that the survey is fixed. Far from it. I'm only suggesting that it might be flawed.

So instead of relying solely on Compass, they should also read the parties platforms before marking their 'X'.

There is also a group promoting strategic voting, which may be the most important campaign of all, because this means 'seats' not just votes. Catch 22 Harper Conservatives.

And for political engagement and activism, there is also:

leadnow.ca
coffeeparty.ca
Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper
unseatharper.ca

Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals Were Wise to Choose Democracy as Their issue

John Whyte, professor emeritus of law at Queen’s University, has an excellent Oped piece in the Toronto Star: Pillars of democracy wobble

Stephen Harper is campaigning on a scary coalition, and his smoke and mirrors handling of the economy. Jack Layton is rightfully championing the causes of the disenfranchised, though some of his proposals may be a little out of line with our current financial situation.

But Michael Ignatieff has made the focus of his campaign, our loss of something more important than anything else: our democracy.

And that tramping on our democracy also speaks to many other concerns, from secrecy, to the silencing of dissent. We saw how easy it was to inspire 225,000 people to join a facebook group, just days after Stephen Harper called his second self-serving prorogation.

And how easy it was to organize rallies for democracy, to let our politicians know that we were watching.

And Michael Ignatieff has the knowledge and experience to make impassioned pleas.

His great grandfather, George Munroe Grant, was instrumental in Confederation, when he convinced Nova Scotians to join. It may still have taken place, but not when it did. An uncle, George Parkin Grant was a strong Conservative, writing a book lamenting Diefenbaker's demise: Lament for a Nation.

His grandfather, George Lawson Grant wrote a portion of the Chronicles of Canada. His father was a long serving diplomat and his mother the niece of Vincent Massey.

He has the history of Canada and our democratic institutions in his veins. As Mr. Whyte reminds us:

Canada’s current experience raises questions over the integrity of responsible government. For instance:

• The government possibly contracted for the silence of one of the parliamentary officers — Public Sector Integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet — and interfered with her work.

• It refused to hold International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda responsible for failing to meet the essential standard of disclosure in dealing with Parliament and its committees.

• It refused to provide parliamentarians with the cost implications of new policies and new legislation defeating Parliament’s ability to hold the government to account.

• It has merged political campaigning with governmental administration thereby gaining partisan advantage at public expense. These actions are not just bad government, or a source of political embarrassment; they represent an erosion of our constitutional structure.

Michael Ignatieff will make an excellent prime minister.

Stephen Harper Says Those Who Commit Fraud Should Not be Punished

On the campaign trail, the Conservatives are trying to keep all campaigns local, to avoid having to discuss the many scandals and the Contempt of Parliament charges brought against their government.

When pressed on the issue of the "In and Out", where receipts were fabricated to collect money that they weren't entitled to, Stephen Harper simply referred to it as an Administrative dispute".

Are you in a dispute with Revenue Canada as tax time approaches? Take heart. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is on your side. At least that's the way I interpret his defence this week of his party's conduct in what is being dubbed the "in-and-out" affair. Elections Canada said the scheme was illegal.

It said the people who took part were breaking the law and that the Conservative party was bilking taxpayers. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed, overturning a lower-court ruling that found Elections Canada had overstepped its authority. Not to worry, Harper said. What we have here is nothing more than an administrative dispute, a mere difference of opinion.

He refuses to take responsibility for anything. The following video comes from someone called angrytory:

Ignatieff's Game and Harper's Problem Will Define This Election

Adam Radwanski writes in the globe and Mail:

Ignatieff's got game, Harper's got a problem But the Liberal Leader is surprising even his own handlers with his comfort on the campaign trail. And he shows signs of making the Conservatives pay for underestimating him, and for conditioning the public – through advertisements that portrayed Mr. Ignatieff as a bumbling dilettante – to do likewise.

Everyone counted Harper out in 2005, including his own people. Martin was well ahead in the polls too.

Paul Wells says at Macleans says Ignatieff finds his fight. Hebert believes that if voters turn out, this could be an interesting election.

Even a Sun columnist writes: "when you see the PM these days on the campaign trail, he looks tired and irritable. When you see his chief opponent, he looks like he is having the time of his life." And David Akin tweeted that Sun journalists told Harper to stop treating them like putzs and quit making them stand behind a fence like cattle. They haven't jumped ship but the seas are getting rough.

And the Toronto Star says that Harper may be playing it safe, but appears to be stumbling.

That’s the game Stephen Harper’s Conservatives played this week. But by the end of week one of the campaign, it was apparent Harper may be playing it too safe and too confident in the face of a political rival stronger than whom he faced in the last election.

A week that started strong for Harper — by putting Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on his heels with accusations of plotting to lead an opposition coalition — ended with the Conservative leader looking unsteady on everything from debates, his dealings with the media and even his attacks around the coalition.

Vivian Baker in the Victoria Times Columnists says that Harper can't be trusted with majority:

The thought of Stephen Harper's party obtaining a majority scares me. I am a lifelong red Tory by inclination -though I have had no relationship with the Conservative party since Brian Mulroney was elected leader -and right up to the last election I was hoping for a small Conservative majority in the House. I now dread that thought based on Harper's actions.

I don't think he can be trusted with another mandate, period.

And Rabble: Escalating F-35 fighter jet price tag + future defence plan costs = election issue

Glen Pearson describes a campaign stop in London, where Michael Ignatieff was well received. It sounded very much like last weekend when Carolyn Bennett payed a visit to Kingston. They came out in droves because her topic was our decaying democracy. Despite what Harper things, Canadians do care.

I'll give Scott Feschuk the last word: Stephen Harper’s lessons in strategery

To run a disastrous election campaign, it’s important to get things off on the wrong foot as quickly as possible. Maybe stand outside Rideau Hall and ensure that potential voters see you as inexplicably angry and, frankly, kind of paranoid. That should do the trick. Elect me or the sinister coalition will put fluoride in our precious bodily fluids! Try to sound vaguely unhinged. (My emphasis)

Score this week for Ignatieff.

The Real Reason Stephen Harper Wants to End Voter Subsidies. Corporate Control.

Stephen Harper is again posturing over taxpayers having to subsidize political parties. He fails to mention the $247 million and counting he charged taxpayers to fund his 'Canada Economic Action Plan' ad blitz.

We should actually be alarmed that his reasoning means fewer elections, the most fundamental part of a democracy. Is he suggesting no more elections if we give him permission to continue his one man act?

When he was heading the Alliance Party he spoke out against the Liberal plan that removed the power from corporations and gave it back to engaged citizens. Harper argued that "increased public subsidies to parties would preserve Liberal hegemony, reduce the responsiveness of parties to their members and the public, and require taxpayers to support parties with which they disagree."

A misleading statement because it is actually $1.95 going to the party that the individual taxpayer voted for. Democracy at it's most profound. Not all Canadians are able to donate to politicians, and the subsidy puts everyone on equal footing. The price of a cup of coffee as a reward for performing their civic duty.

Don't forget that Stephen Harper was the one who sued us for not allowing corporations to fund election campaigns.

But let's say for a moment that he is sincere and cares about us poor taxpayers. He shouldn't stop there. I have a few suggestions.

ABSOLUTELY NO SELF PROMOTION ADVERTISING. All government sites are government sites only, and all media buys are for actual news relating to new programs or warnings on health and safety issues. A $250 million savings right there. Britain already has a law to that effect, and Ontario had to adopt a law after Mike Harris almost broke the bank on signs and TV spots.

This would also include ten percenters with silly messages like Michael Ignatieff once called himself a Samurai Warrior. Unless the Samarai have declared war on us, nobody cares. There's another $10 million savings.

Any religious organization that campaigns for a political party MUST LOSE THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS. Why are pro-life groups allowed to issue tax receipts and not political activist organizations?

Lower the tax incentive. Most campaign contributions cost very little because the savings are enormous. This enables the wealthiest citizens to have a bigger voice than the rest of us.

So unless he's willing to entertain these notions, especially the first, then he's just blowing smoke.