The (UN)Fair Elections Act

As is usual with so many of the Bills proposed by the Harper Regime the 'Fair' Elections Act has so many changes buried in the fine print that it is almost impossible for all but the most dedicated and knowledgeable researchers to really understand the implications of it all. Whilst there is little doubt that some changes were needed (in particular in view of the robocall issue) I must question that our election Act was so problematic that it needed a 247 page rewrite, and that just for the CHANGES to it!

I intended to read the whole thing as I was, and still am, very suspicious of this sudden proposal from our Minister of UnDemocratic Reform who it seems did not consult with Elections Canada on the suitability of these changes. I now have to admit to having to leave such dissection to others with more patience than myself, as is normal with such bills it is replete with references to previous legislation similar to this “24. (1) Subsection 52(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):” and “The heading before section 82 and sections 82 to 88 of the Act are repealed. - Section 90 of the Act is repealed. - The heading before section 92.1 and sections 92.1 to 92.6 of the Act are repealed” which means that a researcher (or parliamentarian) who wants to know the effect of these clauses must constantly refer to the existing legislation. That such legislation already contains similar gobbledegook leaves the average persons head spinning. Why such documents do not say that the entire Act is repealed and replaced with the following (with changes highlighted) so that our MPs actually know what they are voting for I have never understood.

So, all that said here are a few things highlighted by others starting with the one thing which is fairly clear that being that any opinion expressed by the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the interpretation of the rules shall not be binding upon the Partys or the Politicians!

16.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall,
in accordance with this section, issue guidelines
and interpretation notes on the application of
this Act to registered parties, registered associations,
nomination contestants, candidates and
leadership contestants.
(8) The guidelines and interpretation notes
are issued for information purposes only. They
are not binding on registered parties, registered
associations, nomination contestants, candidates
or leadership contestants.


I found this one 'interesting'
21.1 (1) A committee is established, to be known as the Advisory Committee of Political
Parties, consisting of the Chief Electoral Officer and two representatives of each registered party appointed by the party’s leader.
(2) The purpose of the committee is to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with advice and recommendations relating to elections and political financing.
(3) The committee’s advice and recommendations are not binding on the Chief Electoral Officer.
(4)The committee shall meet at least once a year and its meetings shall be presided over by the Chief Electoral Officer

I wonder what a committee of POLOTICAL individuals, no matter how well meaning, are doing “advising” the head of an independent arms length NON political body?


The other thing that is fairly obvious and has been picked up by many observers are the changes to some of the financial rules which appear to benefit the affluent and disenfranchise those partys and individuals less well heeled.
“Democracy Watch decried the bill's increase in the amount election candidates would be able donate to their own campaign (to $5,000 from $1,200), and the amount party leadership candidates would be able to donate to their own race (to $25,000 from $1,200).”
It would also allow parties to exclude money spent during campaigns to solicit funds from donors who have contributed $20 or more to them at any point over the previous five years. That the partys need not itemize donations under $200 and that it is impossible to police such exemptions and that even if strictly controlled it helps partys with extensive databases going back 5 years and hurts those with less funds to devote to such exercises means nothing to these self serving Ologarchs.

Moving on we get this “The commissioner of elections, the agency's investigator, would be appointed (for a 7 year fixed term) by the federal director of public prosecutions in future, and completely severed from Elections Canada.”
This may or may not be a good thing, one question I have is if the commissioner who is responsible for enforcing the Election Laws is separate from those responsible for seeing that they are followed how will any wrongdoings be identified and prosecuted. Will it be more or less responsive than the almost snails pace current investigation re Con robocalls.
And finally (for this go around) we note that those without two pieces of government issued ID will not be allowed to have a neighbour vouch for them. This is of course due to the voter fraud that happened at one Toronto polling station whereby a number of questionable people were allowed to vote by such means, that the main problem was due to the polling station clerks not following procedure mandated for such things does not seem to have been addressed but making it more difficult for those who perhaps only have their OAS card and no drivers licence to register is not the answer. Also that Elections Canada will not be able to promote voting and encourage folks to vote! Whats wrong with that picture?

In an interview on CBC Radio Canada's Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand said "my reading of the act is that I can no longer speak about democracy in this country." it "limits the chief electoral officer's power to provide information to the public."
Under the proposed bill, the only role of the chief electoral officer would be to inform the public of when, where, and how to vote.
Elections Canada would be forbidden from launching ad campaigns encouraging Canadians to vote. Surveys and research would be forbidden under the new bill, Mayrand said.

Whilst there are some good things in this bill I suspect many more questionable provisions will emerge in the next few weeks. This would be of much less concern if I thought for one moment that during the legislative process in the HoC, in committee, and in the Senate that amendments to the bill would be considered and adopted to fix these flaws. Given the past behaviour of Harper cabal it is most improbable that such will ever take place, in fact it will be rushed through so that more money can be spent (by the established partys) upon bullshitting the public into democratic oblivion.
In fact the push to limit debate has already started......
“The governing Conservatives moved Wednesday to cut short debate on a new election bill that critics say helps the Tories and weakens oversight by Elections Canada.
House Leader Peter Van Loan gave notice Wednesday afternoon, a day after the 242-page bill was tabled, that the government will vote to send the bill to committee on Thursday, a move that seemed to signal the government plans to push the bill through the legislative process without changes.”
The above link also contains several more problematic areas of concern with this bill – also see the series Theft of Democracy here!
Sigh..... Democracy is not only dead withing the Con ranks but they are determined to bury it so deep that it can never be resurrected.
Lead Now has a petition to be presented to parliament available here






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Fair Elections Act

The Conservative government will introduce changes to the Elections Act this week that caucus members expect to restructure the office in charge of investigating violations. “It’s the Fair Elections Act,” Poilievre said.
Given the Conservatives penchant for naming bills in an Orwellian fashion we had best keep an eye on this one. I suspect it will be more of a “Government Control of Election Investigations Act”.

It has been reported that “The bill would remove the Commissioner of Canada Elections, where the investigators work, from Elections Canada and set it up as separate office” Which of course is just about the opposite of what is needed given that Elections Canada has been hamstrung in its investigation of the Harper Regiem's actions during the last election by stonewalling and funding cuts.
I note that it is also reported that “The minister has invited the chief electoral officer to contact his officials for a briefing and we are in the midst of making the arrangements,” Enright said in an email. “The CEO has not been consulted on the bill.”

The Chief Electoral NOT consulted on legislation that substantially affects his department and removes investigating powers from Elections Canada. Looks like another Con Job to me!



More to come on this one......... Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

An Independent Senate – We can but hope!

“I call upon the Prime Minister to publicly commit, as I have today, to be guided in all future Senate appointments by an open, transparent, non-partisan process, and once appointed, have senators sit independent from the political parties that serve in in the House of Commons.
Justin Trudeou Jan 29 2014

By now you all know that in a surprising and brave move the Liberal leader has released all the former Liberal Senators from any connection from the Liberal Caucus saying that “only elected Members of the House of Commons will serve as members of the Liberal Caucus. “ Whilst this move is not without its problems, not the least of which is how Senate committees will be formed and chaired in the future, it is in my view probably the only way in the short term to return the Senate to its role of 'sober second thought' and reduce the extreme partisanship that has made it simply a rubber stamp of the PMO. That Mr Trudeau also says what many of us who believe the senate has in the past (and can in the future) have an important role in our parliamentary system have said for some time is also encouraging. That being:-

“I’m committing today that, if I earn the privilege of serving Canadians as their Prime Minister, I will put in place an open, transparent, non-partisan public process for appointing and confirming Senators. No more closed doors. No more secretive deliberations. No more announcements the week before Christmas, under the cover of darkness.”

There already has been a great deal of debate upon exactly what kind of process such a system will entail and no doubt there will be much more. As always the devil is in the details! We know that Harper has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule upon exactly what can and cannot be done within the existing constitutional framework and you may be sure that if he cannot hold sway over decisions in the Senate his preference would be to abolish it (as it would seem is also the preference of the NDP) so that a PM who holds a majority (preferably him of course) can have total control over legislation. Justin covers this point thusly:-

As an unelected body, there are — and ought to be — limits on the Senate’s power. These limits have expanded over time and have become conventions. These proposals are in keeping with that direction.

As you all know, the Supreme Court of Canada will rule sometime soon on the exact limits of the House of Commons power as it relates to Senate Reform. Let me be clear on this point: these proposals, while bold and concrete, are not the final word. They represent our judgment of how far we can go in the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court.

In other words, I believe this is the most meaningful action possible without opening up the Constitution. If the Supreme Court says more can be done, we will be open to doing more.

All in all despite some of the details that will need to be sorted out in both the actual operation of the Senate with no party caucuses and the way in which future Senators are selected (perhaps recommended to the PM would be a better term as under the constitution the PM must still 'appoint' the senators) this in my view a fantastic move by the Liberals. Some have already said that:-

“when (when, not if) Trudeau is Prime Minister, he will have a problem. Every single piece of legislation must pass the Upper House, the unelected side. To do that with a chamber for of independents will be hard, if not impossible. When push comes to shove, independents will flex their political muscle. They will pass nothing that they don’t approve of, Senate traditions not withstanding.”

I disagree, A senate full of independents would work EXACTLY how it was supposed to work, legislation would pass or fail entirely upon its merits rather that along partisan lines, now wouldn’t that be refreshing? Its not like should the Liberals come to power that all those Con Senators appointed by Harper will suddenly disappear, they will in fact be an undemocratic presence in the upper chamber for years to come. We hope that at least some of them will declare themselves independent and think and act independently, it would indeed be a step in the right direction, as is this brought to our attention by Nancy over at Impolitical:-


“This may be a nod to the democratic reform resolution that the federal Liberal MP caucus has proposed as one of its priority resolutions to be voted upon at the upcoming February biennial policy convention in Montreal, less than a month away now. That resolution, Bolstering Canada's Democracy, contains this operative proposal:

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT immediately after the next election, the Liberal Party of Canada institute an all-Party process, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with analysis and recommendations for an electoral system including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent all Canadians more fairly and to allow Parliament to serve Canada better.

I do hope the Libs endorse this resolution.


A final note here if anyone, including Justin, thinks that Harper will willingly give up his control over the conservative senators or despite his rhetoric to do so, embrace a “open, transparent, non-partisan process” for appointing them then they are dreaming in technicolour. This will be particularly true if the Cons think they are going to be in opposition come 2015, after all we wouldn’t want any one else to be able to pass legislation through the Senate would we? Watch for a highly partisan attack upon this idea from the Harper Oligarchs.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers