Lizzie May: Not in Favour of a Fair Distribution?

Green Party leader pretends to be a target

With the NDP already pledged to oppose legislation to grant additional Parliamentary seats to Canada's fastest-growing provinces -- namely, Alberta, BC and Ontario -- it was only a matter of time before the rest of the opposition found a way to justify opposing the bill as well.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May seems to have found her pretext: as with so many things, the self-absorbed May considers the bill to be an attack on her, directly.

Waving around a Conservative Party newsletter in which Saanich-Gulf Islands Tory Bruce Hallsor notes that the re-distrubtion may make it easier for them to beat May in the next election.

May seems to think the newsletter is incriminating, but all she's offered is what is currently just idle speculation.

Of course, the detail that the Globe and Mail's projections are not based on any proposed re-districting -- no such proposals exist until independent commissions have done their work -- but only on votes cast in the past election will almost certainly be ignored by May.

In the end, it's purely intuitive: the party with the largest share of the vote in each of these provinces will reap the biggest reward. The Tories dominate in Alberta, are strong in BC, and swept Ontario in the 2011 election.

When one considers where the additional ridings need to be added to account for population growth -- in Northern Alberta, central BC, and suburban GTA -- it's not at all surprising that the strength of the Conservative vote in these areas would yield victories for Conservatives.

It's the just the way things are right now. If the work of these independent commissions concludes that the boundaries of Saanich-Gulf Islands should be redrawn, it's just the way it will be. To tailor the process just to suit May would be a dereliction of the commission's responsibilities: namely, to produce a re-distribution that is fair to all constituents, not just to May.

If Elizabeth May and the Green Party don't like it, perhaps they should campaign harder in those areas, and propose policy that will appeal to, as opposed to repulse, those voters.

Liberals Striking Out on Corruption Allegations

Liberal desperation at bat starting to show

If one were to ask the Liberal party, they would certainly be assured that Canada's governing Conservative party is secretive, corrupt and untrustworthy.

Most Canadians would probably be forgiven if they thought that sounded more like the Liberal party, but I digress.

First off, the Liberals insisted that the Conservative party failed to report more than a million dollars in donations related to the party's 2005 convention. While it turns out that there were indeed undisclosed donations, they turned out to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as opposed to millions. The scandal subsequently failed to gain any traction with the Canadian public.

Foul ball. Strike one.

Then, the Liberals insisted that the Conservatives had broken election law with their so-called "in and out" scandal, despite the fact that the expenditures themselves were well within the letter of the law.

Strike two.

Now, the Liberal party is seizing upon allegations that Brian Mulroney took several years to pay tax on $300,000 he recieved from Karlheinz Schreiber shortly after he left public office.

Of course, it has been said that a bad penny always turns up again. But for the Liberal party, this is more like 30,000,000 bad pennies turning up, and all on their own accord.

See, the Liberal party has already had a bad experience with Brian Mulroney and this allegedly-scandalous payment. In fact, when Liberal leader Stephane Dion was in Jean Chretien's cabinet, the federal government was ordered to fork $2.1 million over to Brian Mulroney as a result of an RCMP letter written to the government of Switzerland that falsely accused Mulroney of a crime.

Now, one might expect that this latest allegation would represent a pitch that Dion simply may not want to swing at.

Guess again.

In fact, when Dion rose during yesterday's Question Period, he swung for the fences. "Will the prime minister take every step necessary regarding this disturbing information about Brian Mulroney to get to the bottom of this matter?" Dion asked. "The current prime minister owes the institution he represents a duty to shed full light on this issue. Will he do that? Will he set up a commission of public inquiry?"

When government house leader Peter Van Loan rose to answer, the sound of the ball hitting the catcher's mitt was clearly audible.

"That Liberal leader was part of a cabinet that had to pay 2 million dollars of taxpayers' money for falsely pursued allegations in exactly this case," Van Loan pointed out.

Kitchener Center Liberal MP and party whip Karen Redman would later try to step in as a pinch-hitter. "Taxpayers' dollars are lining the pockets of Brian Mulroney. Canadians deserve answers. Will this Conservative government launch an inquiry?" she asked.

And she's right. Taxpayers' dollars are lining the pockets of Brian Mulroney. This happened because the RCMP, under the Liberals' watch, not only falsely accused Mulroney of a crime, but actually made those false accusations to the government of another country.

Strike three.

Perhaps it's ironic that the Liberals would like Canadians to now think of them as dedicated corruption-fighters while in opposition. Ironic because they had plenty of chances to do so while they were in government, and failed utterly to do so.

Shawinigate. Strike one.

Jane Stewart's HRDC billion-dollar boondoggle. Strike two.

The Sponsorship Scandal. Strike three.

The Liberals, in terms of battling corruption, have now struck out not only in government, but in opposition as well.

The Liberal party would certainly be well-advised to play to its strengths. Although insipid, the party is more likely to score some runs with their "mean Stephen Harper" invective.

As far as corruption goes, however, the party will likely continue to find that it's likely to continue striking out, particularly when they failed to swing at those pitches when it would have mattered most.

Canadians Should Have to Lift Their Veil Before They Drop Their Ballot

Veiled voting not compatible with democracy

Amidst the increasing controversy regarding the issue of veils and voting, the Conservative government has introduced a bill that would require Muslim women to remove their veil for the purposes of identification before they may vote in an election.

Predictably, the bill has brought accusations of racism from many of the usual sources.

Unfortunately for these individuals, the issue really has nothing to do with racism, or any other form of discrimination, at all. This issue is about Canada's electoral security.

"During the recent byelections in Quebec, the government made it clear that we disagreed with the decision by Elections Canada to allow people to vote while concealing their face," the bill's author, Peter Van Loan, said.

The government was right do disagree with the ruling by Elections Canada. Not only was the ruling untenably wrong, it was also extremely irresponsible.

The fact is that one of Elections Canada's prime responsibilities is to ensure the electoral security of Canadian elections. In order to ensure this, it is of paramount importance that all those casting ballots in Canadian elections can be identified as registered voters.

There is nothing racist about that -- nothing intolerant about it. However, proposals that veils should be banned in all public places clearly are intolerant (freedom of choice has to include the freedom to choose to wear the veil).

Naturally, amidst some of the meaningless outrage, there are a few insightful criticisms of the bill abound. Consider analysis by Lolita Buckner Innis, who notes that mail-in absentee ballots are still counted, despite the fact that it's impossible to be certain whether or not the person who cast the ballot was actually a registered voter or not.

That's a very fair point, and reveals a very serious loophole in elections law, one that should be closed for the same reason why Muslim women should be required to lift their veils for purpose of identification.

The day of the mail-in ballot should be over, as should be the days of veiled voting. The alternatives to mail-in ballots are certainly more expensive, but the ability to assert absolute, unassailable confidence in Canada's electoral process is well worth it.

There is nothing unreasonable about expecting Canadians to identify themselves prior to voting. In fact, it's the alternative that is unreasonable -- and to cast away Canada's electoral security in the name of spurrious political correctness would make it all the more unreasonable, and extremely irresponsible.

Of course, let it be known that there are other ways to seriously harm Canada's electoral security -- voting via internet, and the electronic voting machines so popular in the United States, stand as prime examples.

Asking Muslim women to identify themselves prior to voting doesn't even represent a minor inconvenience.

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of this controversy is that it reveals how little it takes to provoke a major controversy in Canada.