A debate? - Macleans.ca

A debate?


Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae has written to the Speaker to request an emergency debate.

In my opinion, this debate is necessary because denying someone the opportunity to vote, is to deny them the most basic right that exists in our democracy. The suppression of voters can undermine the legitimacy and credibility of those elected to serve in Parliament. These reports undermine the reputation of Parliament and cast a shadow over the legitimacy of all Parliamentary proceedings. In my view, denying someone the right to vote is such a serious issue, that it merits the immediate attention of the House of Commons.


A debate?

  1. Where do the people of Canada sign in support of Rae’s letter?

  2. Well something has to be done about it.

    Attempted voter suppression in 27 ridings is no small thing.

    • “Attempted voter suppression in 27 ridings is no small thing.”

      How about across an entire province?

      Winnipeg Free Press ~ Feb 24:

      Manitoba MP Niki Ashton is fighting back against opponents in the NDP leadership race she says are playing dirty.Ashton went off against Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair this week, accusing him of spreading a rumour in Quebec that she was dropping out of the race.”

      Obviously, it would benefit a number of candidates if I was not in the race,” Ashton said. “It is no accident that these rumours are centred in Quebec, because I have been very active there and I have been getting support in Quebec.”

      Ashton said her Quebec contacts told her of the rumours and two journalists called to ask her about it. She traced the source of what they heard to Mulcair’s campaign team.

      • You mean like the rumour Cons spread about Irwin Cotler resigning and a by-election to replace him?

  3. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

    Globe/Mail ~ Feb 24: There is no public evidence Mr. Sona had any link to the matter, which is being investigated by Elections Canada. 

    wiki ~ Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland.

    The result is the modern perception that the “not proven” verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant’s innocence to bring in a “not guilty” verdict.

    Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as “not guilty and don’t do it again”

  4. Of course he wants to have the debate before any facts are known. I’m thinking Rae knows something we don’t, and he wants to sling as much mud as possible before the facts become public knowledge.

    • I disagree: I think Rae knows that mudslinging in HoC falls on deaf ears these days.  Maybe a debate would become a first step towards a public inquiry or something.

  5. To what end?
    Screw debate, get the RCMP,. Elections Canada, and the Guelph police force investigating.  I say all three of these groups because between them I don’t trust the RCMP to not bend over for the CPC, CPC supporters think Elections Canada is out to get them, and nobody knows the Guelph police, so hopefully the combination of these groups will give us something we can agree on.

    • i agree.

  6. Has the Liberal Party given the $40 million dollars from the sponsorship scandal back yet?

    $40 million dollars vs. a few robocalls.  Like how stupid does one have to be to follow the advice of a robocall?

    • “Like how stupid does one have to be to follow the advice of a robocall?”

      Forest Gump ~ Stupid is as stupid does

      • removed by poster

    • First, your math is as pathetic as your reasoning.
      2 million was awarded in contracts without a proper bidding process. 250k added to a contract for no additional work, and 1.5 million for work that wasn’t done, of which a million was repaid. That’s 2.75 million. A bit shy of 40.

      Second, because of how we’re a democratic nation, with free and fair elections (we think) the Liberals were turfed for this behavior shortly thereafter.  The problem is that’s exactly what these robocalls were attacking.

      The money is irrelevant, because if we lose free and fair elections, we’ve lost the ability to turf folks like the Liberals when we find out things have gone wrong.

    • $40 million? Where on earth did you get that number?

      From Wikipedia: ” In the end the Commission concluded that $2 million was awarded in
      contracts without a proper bidding process, $250,000 was added to one
      contract price for no additional work, and $1.5 million was awarded for
      work that was never done, of which $1 million had to be repaid.”

      What you call “a few robocalls” is more commonly referred to as voter suppression. It’s illegal, undemocratic and utterly immoral. And I suspect that, had the Liberal party called thousands of voters and lied to them about how to vote, you would be screaming bloody murder. Quite justifiably, too.

      • Sheila Fraser, 2004 Auditor’s General’s Report.

        • Can you narrow that down a bit? What does that number represent? 

          Do you really mean to imply that the LPC took $40M for themselves through the sponsorship program?

          • I think he certainly means to imply that.

            The relationship of that implication to reality is something else entirely.

  7. And hey, what about McGuinty’s SuperPAC, the Ontario Working Families Coalition, in a class of its own in Canada in terms of “third-party” spending in an election campaign.  McGuinty has had 8 years to bring in campaign finance reform in Ontario.

    • I think you’d be wise to just admit this one, and stop trying to claim someone else did it first.

      That excuse is threadbare

    • Keep an eye on the furniture … if he keeps flailing around something’s
      gotta break ..