Election reform bill an affront to democracy

[maryjane48]

didn't see a thing in there mentioning robocalls, which really did affect voting results.

[c2c]

Voting is a constitutional right in Canada.

“Pierre Lortie, chairman of a 1992 royal commission on electoral reform, testified to a House of Commons committee last week that eliminating vouching "undoubtedly contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

But, I am reassured that Pierre Poilievre is convinced that his “proposal is constitutionally compliant”. LOL!

“Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative minister for democratic reform, was asked at a Senate committee last week whether Justice Department lawyers had checked that Bill C-23 was Charter-proof.

"They have considered the legality of it and I am convinced the proposal is constitutionally compliant," Poilievre responded, somewhat ambiguously.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal ... -1.2609144

[Merry]

The biggest problem with this Bill is the way it's being introduced.

A Bill that deals with such fundamental democratic principles ought not to be subject to the possibility of partisanship when it is drafted. And the only way I know to eliminate (or at least reduce) that possibility is to allow ALL Party participation in the drafting process, followed by Public Hearings to determine whether or not the Public is in agreement.

Such a bill most certainly should not be rushed through Parliament in the unseemly way the Conservatives have been trying to ram this one through. If they truly believe that the Bill is perfect the way it is drafted, then they should be willing to open up the debate and DEFEND that which they believe to be right.

It is impossible to defend what the Conservatives are doing with this Bill, and Canadians are wise to be concerned.

[Urbane]

The biggest problem with this Bill is the way it's being introduced.

A Bill that deals with such fundamental democratic principles ought not to be subject to the possibility of partisanship when it is drafted. And the only way I know to eliminate (or at least reduce) that possibility is to allow ALL Party participation in the drafting process, followed by Public Hearings to determine whether or not the Public is in agreement.

Such a bill most certainly should not be rushed through Parliament in the unseemly way the Conservatives have been trying to ram this one through. If they truly believe that the Bill is perfect the way it is drafted, then they should be willing to open up the debate and DEFEND that which they believe to be right.

It is impossible to defend what the Conservatives are doing with this Bill, and Canadians are wise to be concerned.

Yes, and it's certainly one of the reasons that I'm keeping an open mind about which party I'll support in next year's election. This government does have a habit of being heavy-handed and the manner in which this bill has been rolled out is a prime example.

[Atomoa]

Ottawa Sun Editorial

Why would we base our elections laws on CPC editorials instead of on elections experts, Elections Canada experts and actual data?

Is there a current problem with voter fraud?

No there is not.

Who (and 300+ of your friends) will want to risk 5 years in jail and exposing the Canadian public to who you were working for and invalidating a entire election in the process? Destroying/disbanding the political party ultimately?

...and you'd have to do this across Canada. 300+ people committing voter fraud x # of riding's in Canada (let's just say 50% of riding's) Only 45,000 people in this little conspiracy. Who can keep a secret?

Of course - nobody knows how the public is going to vote so all fraudulent efforts could be swiftly eliminated and countered by legitimate votes that cannot be "planned for". A large number of the 45,000 people could be risking 5 years in jail for nothing at all. Their party could have had a landslide victory, or, the party that wasn't expected to win ends up with twice as many votes as people on the voucher fraud payroll. Opps.

Risk/reward.

A coordinated effort to defraud a election by "vouching fraud" is not executable plan by anyone wishing to stay out of jail.

[Merry]

By CBC News, cbc.ca
Fair elections act: 7 things you may not know

Most of the debate about the changes the government wants to make to how Canadians vote and run elections has centred around vouching. But there are many more controversial measures inside Bill C-23. Here are seven things you may not know about the proposed fair elections act.

1. Party-appointed election workers
The government wants to introduce rules that would let the winning candidate of the previous election — the member of Parliament — choose some of the workers at polling stations. The candidate would select the deputy returning officers, central poll supervisors and poll clerks.
The bill's clause 20 would allow a returning officer to refuse appointments on "reasonable grounds," but doesn't set out what qualify as reasonable grounds.
Under current legislation, those workers are appointed by returning officers, who are hired by Elections Canada. The central poll supervisors, for example, are put in place at polling stations to make sure voting unfolds smoothly.
Harry Neufeld, British Columbia's former chief electoral officer and an independent election consultant, told the CBC's Rosemary Barton last month that the move is "completely inappropriate in a democracy." Neufeld told reporters later in March that the bill is an attempt to tilt the playing field in favour of the Conservatives.

2. New spending loopholes
Often, updating legislation means closing loopholes. In this case, the bill would also loosen campaign spending rules to create a loophole.
Clause 86 of the new bill would let political parties spend as much as they want on election fundraising from people who have contributed $20 or more in the last five years. Right now, if a party hires a company to solicit money during an election, that counts as an election expense. Election expenses are capped based on the population.
One concern about the loophole is that it would let the parties not only raise funds but solicit support from voters in those calls, emails or mailouts.
As former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley said, it's hard to separate what Elections Canada calls advertising calls from fundraising calls. Both are currently included under the spending cap, which is meant to ensure an even playing field for all candidates. Exempting the fundraising calls would allow the parties with more money to spend more hiring professional fundraisers to raise more money.
"It is simply not possible to seek funds without including reasons for giving, and this can only constitute advertising for or against a party or a candidate. Moreover, it favours richer and established parties to the detriment of small and especially newer parties," Kingsley told MPs at the procedure and House affairs committee on March 25.
The Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee will recommend removing that loophole, the CBC's Leslie MacKinnon reported Monday.
The bill also increases donation limits from $1,200 to $1,500 a year.

3. CEO gag order
Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand says he's concerned about a measure that would limit what he can say publicly.
The act would change the current Canada Elections Act's section 18 to limit the topics on which the chief electoral
officer can speak. The bill's clause 7 would allow him only five topics:
- How to become a candidate.
- How voters can add their names to the voters list or have it corrected.
- How voters can cast ballots.
- How voters can prove their identity and address.
- How voters with disabilities can get into polling stations and mark their ballots.
Mayrand told the Senate committee last week that he's concerned the chief electoral officer would no longer be able to alert the public to problems during an election or even to work with programs that teach students about civic affairs and how elections work.
The Senate committee is recommending allowing the chief electoral officer to continue his work with those programs and that he be allowed to notify the public of problems.

4. Notification of investigation
On the flip side of that, the commissioner of Canada Elections — the person who investigates possible wrongdoing under the Elections Act — would have to tell people being investigated about the probe.
Section 510 of the existing law would see a number of changes, including an instruction to provide written notice "as soon as feasible after beginning an investigation ... to the person whose conduct is being investigated."
Proposed changes would provide the commissioner an out, however, noting that notice "is not to be given if, in the commissioner’s opinion, to do so might compromise or hinder the investigation or any other investigation."

5. Using the voter information card
In 2011, Elections Canada tested a pilot program that let groups of voters use their voter information cards as proof of address. Approximately 400,000 Canadians living on reserves, in long-term care or studying at post-secondary institutions used their VICs as proof of address that year, and Mayrand recommended using the VICs for all voters starting in 2015.
Bill C-23 would ban that option.
Prior to 2007, voters in Canada didn't have to show ID if they were on the voters list. For those without a driver's licence, it can be difficult to prove their address.
Conservative MPs and senators say that the cards are riddled with errors. Mayrand admits there's a seven per cent error rate, which translates into more than 1.6 million mistakes on the cards.
Mayrand told MPs on the procedure and House affairs committee that about 250,000 Canadians move during a five-week election campaign, making some IDs out of sync with their addresses for a few weeks.
"Even driver's licences may not have correct addresses. That's why we have a revision process that allows electors to update their address, and at some point in time during the election, I would suggest — we could have a debate on this — that the VIC is the most precise piece of ID that electors can rely on to establish their address," he said.
"Many of them will not have had a chance to update their driver's licence for the purpose of voting, but they may have, through revision, updated their address correctly."

6. No party spending audits
Canada reimburses candidates and parties for some of the costs of running a campaign. Right now, candidates have to turn in receipts to back up that spending. Federal parties, however, do not, despite submitting $66 million in expenses after the 2011 election. Those expenses were reimbursed at 50 per cent, meaning taxpayers provided $33 million in refunds but have no receipts to show for that money.
Mayrand has asked repeatedly for the power to require receipts for that spending. There is no measure proposed to give the chief electoral officer that ability.

7. Robocalls gaps
The proposed legislation would bring in a number of new rules for voter contact services to close some of the gaps that made it harder to investigate the misleading robocalls made in Guelph, Ont., during the 2011 federal election. The measures are part of what Pierre Poilievre, minister of state for democratic reform, refers to when he says the bill would give enforcement officials "sharper teeth, a longer reach and a freer hand."
The new rules would have the CRTC keep a registry of who orders automated calls and a list of the companies making the calls. The records have to be kept for a year after a campaign.
But critics say one year isn't long enough for the commissioner of Canada Elections to investigate before the records are destroyed. The new rules also don't require companies or parties to keep the list of phone numbers called.
Senators are recommending the calling companies keep the records for three years.

[erinmore3775]

Thank you Merry for posting this article. All the points outlined here have been previously mentioned in separate articles but I believe that this is the first one to clearly outline the major criticisms of the Fair Elections Act.
Recently, I have been in touch with both of our local MP's on this issue. The results were mostly defensive talking points outlined in return emails. However, I do give Dan Albas much credit. He phoned from Ottawa. The resulting conversation was enlightening and we agreed to disagree, but he took the time to listen. Unlike other representatives he has worked hard for the Okanagan and represented it well.
While I do not expect our Federal government to agree with all criticism of its proposed legislation, I do expect it to listen and ensure that legislation it proposes is fair and democratic. I believe that the Fair Elections Act as proposed is neither.

[hobbyguy]

IF election reform were necessary, and I really don't think a lot needs to be done as our elections have been decent, then there is a simple way around the whole controversy.

Start by making the changes effective 2016 - after the next election. Make those changes subject to ratification by the next elected parliament.

If it is a good law, as Skippy insists it is, then it will be a good election issue for the Harper Cons and they will get elected. IF it is a bad law (which I think it is) then it will contribute to their defeat, and the next government can simply not ratify it.

That approach takes away the "stink" of rigging the election. I don't expect the Harperites to do that though, because that is precisely what this "stinker" of a bill is all about.

Skippy saying that it is constitutional carries no weight at all. In fact, him saying so tells me it isn't. The Harper Cons keep running up against playing fast and loose with the Charter and the constitution, and they keep losing. They failed to stack the supreme court by running afoul of the constitution, their "scrap the senate" rhetoric is clearly unconstitutional, and their "tough on crime" laws have been so incompetently written that they keep getting thrown by the supreme court.

IF the Harper Cons pass this "stinker", I hope their is time for a constitutional challenge and ruling before the election. Then it will be mostly gone.

Time and again the Harperites suppress information, pass laws that are unconstitutional, gut fair democratic processes like environmental reviews, and sign long term international deals that give away our sovereignty. It makes me wonder if they believe in a democratic Canada.

[Midnite]

Anyone else hearing Harper is reworking this bill?

[hobbyguy]

I think you will see some cosmetic changes. That's an old bargaining tactic. Union wants 7% over 3 years, union asks for 13% over 2 years. Union settles for 7% over 3 years. Union got what it wanted.

The purpose of this bill is to weaken our democracy. That's pretty blunt, but really clear.

So if Harper, through his toady Skippy Poilievre, gets 50% of the bill through, the Harperites will say "see, we're good guys, we listened and we amended the bill". But the end result of what gets passed will accomplish precisely the its original intent - to undermine our democracy.

There is only one positive outcome. Scrap the entire bill. It is a Frankenstein, and whatever amendments are passed will simply turn it into a Trojan Horse.

Look south. Think "Citizens United". That's what Harper wants.

[alfred2]

you have been spouting off about this bill that is killing demom. explain how without all the bs you spout, be factual and not toms words,

[A_Britishcolumbian]

i would think handcuffing and gagging of the ceo should be foremost in the minds of people with regard to an 'affront to democracy'.

Having to issue guidelines, interpretation notes and written opinions within 45 days of an application will be virtually impossible for the CEO to do in practice, especially when 30 of these days must involve (bilingual) consultation with the ACPP.

Most existing schemes permitting requests for an advance ruling involve a requirement for the applicant to submit all relevant information before any time period for issuing a ruling is counted. They also generally permit the decision maker to refuse to issue an advance ruling. By contrast, the open-ended nature of the C-23 provisions and the inability of the CEO to refuse a request may allow them to be misused (e.g. when a matter is already before the Commissioner or a court).

The CEO still does not have any power to require a party to produce documents evidencing its compliance with the Act, including its claimed expenses.

The bill does not expressly grant the Commissioner the power to seek a court order to compel a witness to provide information for purposes of enforcing the Act.

The power to compel witnesses to provide information has been identified by both the CEO and the Commissioner as a critical operational tool to assist in effectively investigating elections offences. This power exists in several provincial regimes. Compelling witnesses should only be possible on court order, when the Commissioner satisfies a judge that an investigation is taking place and that the person to be examined has directly relevant information. Any information obtained should not be used against the person required to provide it.

The new confidentiality provisions would limit the ability of the Commissioner to issue even de‑personalized public reports (such as to reassure Canadians in the case of an investigation into fraud that uncovered no illegality) and would subsume these into reports from the Director of Public Prosecutions. This compromises the independence of both offices.

The new s. 18 imposes a severe limit on the ability of the CEO to communicate with the public. This will have an impact on a range of Elections Canada's activities, including: civic engagement programs; publication of research in areas not listed in clause 7 of C-23; online recruitment of election officers; publication of reports to Parliament; publication of political financing information and returning officer manuals; issuance of news releases.

The bill removes the Commissioner of Canada Elections from Elections Canada and places the position within the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, information-sharing between the CEO and the Commissioner under the new structure is not expressly addressed.

With the separation of the two officers, clear mechanisms both for the CEO to transfer information to the Commissioner, and for the Commissioner to request information from the CEO – such as occurs currently while both reside in Elections Canada – are required.

the creation of a double standard for voting is certainly an affront.

The bill proposes that many of the features of the voting process on advance polling days and on polling day apply to voting taking place under the special voting rules in the office of a returning officer, including voter identification requirements.

Certain rules are to be imported from the polling day voting process into the process for voting in the office of a returning officer, under subsection (4). These rules are referred to by their section number.

The wording of this provision limits the application of these features to electors who present themselves at the office of the returning officer for the electoral district in which they reside. However, other electors not residing in that electoral district may present themselves at the same office to register for special voting and to vote by special ballot. This means that two different sets of rules will be applicable to electors who vote in the office of a returning officer, which is likely to create confusion.

Some of the rules imported from the polling day voting process cannot apply to voting in the office of a returning officer. For example, s. 136(3) refers to the right of a candidate's representative to examine the list of electors (to determine who has voted or not voted yet). But unlike the deputy returning officer on polling day, the election officer who administers voting in the office of the returning officer does not have such a list.

the clause that allows candidates/parties to hide their calls is dubious.

While this new part of the Act responds in part to the CEO's recommendations, important elements are missing. For example, there is no requirement to keep or provide to anyone the telephone numbers that were called, which is key information for investigations.

letting the rich have their way with fundraising is so de rigueur for the harper and his cads it has lost its 'wow' factor.

Election expenses will no longer include the cost of soliciting monetary contributions from individuals who have made at least one contribution of $20 or more to a party or one of its registered associations, candidates or nomination contestants in the last five years.

This fundraising exemption creates a potential loophole in the election expenses regime. As there is a large grey area between promotion and fundraising, the exemption could be used to avoid having to claim something as an election expense. Parties with a larger established contributor base will have a greater advantage. Verification that only existing contributors were contacted would be impossible for Elections Canada and difficult for the party's external auditor.

The bill includes a pro-rated increase in the spending limit for parties and candidates if the election period is longer than 36 days.

This provision would affect the level playing field by increasing party spending limits up to $650,000 per day / per party, and does not appear necessary, especially in the case of fixed election dates. In addition, “election period” is defined under s. 2 of the Act to begin with the issue of the writ and end on polling day, which is actually 37 days. This means that even the minimum election period required by law would require a pro-rated increase in the spending limit.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?se ... dex&lang=e

[c2c]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story--1043-.htm

I read the latest Castanet contribution from columnist MP Dan Albas. He starts off by blaming the opposition and the media for the negative reaction to Bill C-23, the Fair (sic) Elections Act. He goes on say that his “intent in this week’s report is not actually to enter into the debate on how reasonable it is (or is not) to require identification to vote.” Note however that most of his column is devoted to arguing for the reasonableness of requiring identification in Federal elections.

What MP Albas does not address is the reasonableness of disenfranchising individuals who do not have an acceptable ID with a street address. I have a driver’s licence. If I didn’t, I would be hard pressed to find suitable ID with a street address. (I receive all my bills online.) But forget about me. What about those Canadians who don’t have a driver’s licence and don’t live in a province that have an address on their health card?

Albas goes on to say: “If you follow Ottawa media reports it is commonly suggested that only ‘experts’ and not everyday citizens are capable of forming an opinion on the reasonableness of requiring ID to vote.” This is disingenuous. The media have reported on Minister Poilievre’s view that the opinions of “self proclaimed” experts’ are not important to the Harper Government because it believes that ordinary Canadians think requiring ID is reasonable. I follow the Ottawa media and I challenge Albas to show me media reports that say “only experts are capable of forming an opinion”. The media did report that the experts said it is unreasonable to get rid of vouching. The media did report that “outside the Ottawa bubble”, Canadians generally were not engaged in the debate of the Fair (sic) Elections Act.

Albas concludes by asking “What is causing decreased voter turnout?”. He may want to reflect on his recent column and on whether it engenders faith in federal politicians and increased public engagement in federal politics.

[Midnite]

Albas is not a fan of democracy . Remember the farce that gave him Stockwell Day's seat. Yeah he is a great one to talk of fair elections. lol

[hobbyguy]

Harper and his crew attack everything that doesn't go 100% their way:

1. They went after the CBC
2. They attack "the lamestream media"
3. They attacked and muzzled government scientists and cut their funding
4. They attacked the environmental review process
5. They attacked environmentalists and conservationists
6. They attacked the senate (over their own stupid appointees?)
7. They are attacking the supreme court of Canada http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/02/feud_with_supreme_court_part_of_a_pattern_for_harper_government.html

"Connect the dots between the ongoing skirmish between Harper’s PMO and McLachlin and past and present Conservative feuds with other independent critics and you get the pattern of a governing team that has little tolerance for the checks and balances designed to prevent governments usually elected with the support of minority of voters from abusing the exceptional latitude that attends a parliamentary majority."

Harper and his lap dog "Skippy" Poilievre are attacking Elections Canada, and attacking the voters. It is all they really know how to do, everything else they turn their hand to turns to mud.

They are afraid that some folks won't vote for them, so they don't want those folks to be able to vote.

It is a sad state of affairs when a democratically elected government turns on its own people. What has Harper done to our Canada? His 2006 speech quote; "You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it," is apropos.