Sheila Fraser was once one of Stephen Harper’s favourite people. When she, in her capacity of auditor-general, exposed the Chretien government’s sponsorship scandal, sewing the seeds that would bring down the Liberals, Mr. Harper praised her handsomely as the “mother of all accountants” and in a neat turn of phrase
Continue readingTag: Elections Canada
The Right-Wing Observer: Data Viz of poll results shows even Conservative voters hate the Fair Elections Act
A poll was commissioned by The Council of Canadians, the Canadian Federation of Students, and LeadNow.ca to find out how Canadians feel about the Fair Elections Act. The poll was conducted in late February and early March. I started to put together a visualization of this data, starting with the first
Continue readingCuriosityCat: Robocalls and our Democracy: Michael Harris’ Compelling Ten Questions
Michael Harris: The Big 10 A must read for all who fear for our democracy, Michael Harris has done all Canadians a favour by spelling out ten questions he wants answered, along with some supporting facts that are background to each question he has posed. The inaction or lack of
Continue readingThe Canadian Progressive: Majority of Canadians Oppose Harper’s “Unfair Elections Act”: POLL
by: Council of Canadians | Press Release A new poll released today shows that a majority of Canadians oppose central features of the so-called “Fair” Elections Act, known as Bill C-23. The provisions in the Unfair Elections Act that would eliminate the voucher system, prevent Elections Canada from publicly reporting on election fraud,
Continue readingThe Canadian Progressive: In Open Letter, 19 Professors Denounce Harper’s Fair Elections Act
by: Various We, the undersigned, international scholars and political scientists, are concerned that Canada’s international reputation as one of the world’s guardians of democracy and human rights is threatened by passage of the proposed Fair Elections Act. We believe that this Act would prove [to] be deeply damaging for electoral
Continue readingThe Right-Wing Observer: Can we protect our Democracy from unscrupulous Democratic Reform?
When a person or an organization observes an opportunity for profit or gain and are then confronted with laws that make it illegal to proceed, they usually have to make a choice between two or three vastly different courses of action: Break the law and attempt to escape detection, capture
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading. – Tim Harford proposes four first steps to start combatting income inequality. And the Star’s editorial board makes clear that there’s tax room available for Ontario (among other jurisdictions) to pursue in order to serve the public good: Sousa promises to protect the “middle
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: On foreseeable dangers
The NDP is in the midst of its cross-country consultations on the Unfair Elections Act – with Charlie Angus’ visit to Regina today just one of the many stops along the way. But while the Cons’ insistence on ramming through changes to Canada’s elections law makes it unlikely that we’ll
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week. – Stewart Prest writes about the Cons’ war against experts: (I)n modern democratic states one of the most important sources for non-partisan information and expertise is the government itself. Government bureaucracies are the only institutions in the world today with the access, the resources,
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading. – Bruce Livesey discusses Tony Blair’s role in corporatizing social democracy. And Stephen Elliott-Buckley writes that there’s little reason to listen to the policy prescriptions of a financial elite class which is conspicuously ensuring that its future bears no resemblance to that of
Continue readingThe Cracked Crystal Ball II: Bill C-23 – Stealing Democracy Part IX: The Shackles On Elections Canada Advertising
Ever since Bill C-23 was tabled, I have been baffled by the fact that the bill so viciously curtails the ability of Elections Canada to advertise and communicate with voters in S18: 18(1) The Chief Electoral Officer may provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information on the
Continue readingMontreal Simon: The Real Reason the Cons Want to Muzzle Elections Canada
) They are only 25 second ads designed to encourage young Canadians to vote in 2008.But they are the reason the Cons are trying to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer.Not because the ads didn't work, as they claim. But because they offended Big Oil. Read more »
Continue readingPample the Moose: Open Letter on the Fair Elections Act
Over the weekend, I was asked to sign an open letter regarding the proposed “Fair Elections Act”, a seriously-flawed piece of legislation with an Orwellian name. I was happy to sign it, particularly as the recipient of a diversionary robocall in Guelph on voting day of the last federal election.
Continue readingPample the Moose: Open Letter on the Fair Elections Act
Over the weekend, I was asked to sign an open letter regarding the proposed “Fair Elections Act”, a seriously-flawed piece of legislation with an Orwellian name. I was happy to sign it, particularly as the recipient of a diversionary robocall in Guelph on voting day of the last federal election. The open letter, signed by many Canadian professors, appeared in the National Post and Le Devoir today. I encourage you to read the letter, which outlines a number of key concerns.
The press release accompanying the letter reads as follows:
FAIR ELECTIONS ACT WOULD HARM CANADIAN DEMOCRACY, SAY EXPERTS
An open letter from democracy experts challenging key proposals in the Fair Elections Act (Bill C-23) was sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Members of Parliament today. The letter is signed by over 150 professors at Canadian universities who teach and conduct research on the principles and practices of constitutional democracies, including 15 past presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association. It appeared in the National Post on Tuesday, March 11. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/11/dont-undermine-elections-canada/
The professors believe the Bill’s proposal to eliminate the vouching system and the use of voter information cards as ID in federal elections would decrease voter participation, especially among youth, senior citizens, and First Nations citizens. Elections Canada’s capacity to investigate electoral infractions and raise public awareness about the importance of voting would also be compromised. Also of concern are proposed reforms to campaign finance rules and expense reporting, which would allow political parties to dramatically increase their campaign coffers and spend more on political advertising. Giving money even greater influence on electoral outcomes undermines principles of political fairness and citizens’ equality, they say.
The letter’s authors are urging the Government to facilitate wider consultation on Bill C-23 at the committee level, allowing extensive testimony from both experts and ordinary Canadians.
MEDIA: for more information, contact Monique Deveaux 905-869-5599 mdeveaux@uoguelph.ca
Interviews:
Electoral law; voting rights; campaign finance:
Yasmin Dawood: Assistant Professor of Law, University of Toronto
Contact:yasmin.dawood@utoronto.ca Phone: 416-819-9462 (cell) 416-946-7829 (office)
Democratic institutions, constitutional reform, citizen engagement:
Maxwell A. Cameron: Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia
Contact:Max.Cameron@ubc.caPhone: (011) 51-945-576-220 (cell) or by Skype: maxwellcameron
Democracy; political inequality:
Monique Deveaux: Professor of Philosophy and Canada Research Chair, University of Guelph
Contact: mdeveaux@uoguelph.caPhone: 905-869-5599
Democracy; citizen engagement; political representation:
Melissa Williams: Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto
Contact:melissa.williams@utoronto.caPhone: 416-978-8220 (office) 647-991-5838 (cell)
Influence of money on politics; public trust; citizen engagement:
Patti Tamara Lenard: Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public & International Affairs, University of Ottawa Contact: Patti.Lenard@uottawa.caPhone: 613-796-6647 (cell)
French media interviews: Daniel Weinstock, Professor of Law, McGill University: 514-952-3763
La Loi sur l’intégrité des élections menacerait la démocratie canadienne selon des experts
Des professeurs experts en démocratie ont envoyé aujourd’hui une lettre ouverte contestant des propositions clés de la Loi sur l’intégrité des élections (projet de loi C-23) au premier ministre Stephen Harper ainsi qu’aux membres du parlement. La lettre est signée par plus de 150 professeurs d’universités canadiennes qui enseignent et conduisent des recherches sur les principes et les pratiques des démocraties constitutionnelles, incluant 15 présidents passés de l’Association canadienne de science politique.
Les professeurs croient que la proposition, contenue dans le projet de loi, visant à éliminer le système des répondants ainsi que l’utilisation de la carte d’information de l’électeur à titre de pièce d’identité pour voter lors des élections fédérales diminuerait la participation des électeurs, surtout parmi les jeunes, les aînés et les citoyens des Premières Nations. La capacité d’Élections Canada d’enquêter sur les infractions à la loi électorale et de promouvoir l’importance de voter serait également compromise. Une autre préoccupation des professeurs concerne les réformes proposées du processus de contrôle du financement des campagnes et des dépenses électorales. Ces réformes permettraient aux partis politiques d’augmenter de manière significative leur budget de campagne électorale et de dépenser davantage en publicité partisane. Selon les professeurs, donner à l’argent une influence encore plus grande sur les résultats des élections mine le principe d’égalité des chances électorales.
Les auteurs de la lettre demandent au gouvernement de rendre possible une consultation plus large sur le projet de loi C-23 au niveau du comité qui permettrait à la fois aux experts et aux citoyens de pouvoir témoigner et participer activement au processus consultatif.
CONTACT PRESSE: média francais:
Daniel Weinstock, Professeur, Faculté de droit, McGill: 514-952-3763/danielweins@gmail.com;
André Blais, CRC en études électorales, U de Montréal: 514-343-6111 x40564
Influence of money on politics; public trust; citizen engagement:
Patti Tamara Lenard: Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public & International Affairs, University of Ottawa Contact: Patti.Lenard@uottawa.caPhone: 613-796-6647 (cell)
Electoral law; voting rights; campaign finance:
Yasmin Dawood: Assistant Professor of Law, University of Toronto
Contact:yasmin.dawood@utoronto.ca Phone: 416-819-9462 (cell) 416-946-7829 (office)
Democratic institutions, constitutional reform, citizen engagement:
Maxwell A. Cameron: Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia
Contact:Max.Cameron@ubc.caPhone: (011) 51-945-576-220 (cell)
or by Skype: maxwellcameron [Dr. Cameron is abroad but happy to field media calls]
Democracy and political inequality:
Monique Deveaux: Professor of Philosophy and Canada Research Chair, University of Guelph
Contact: mdeveaux@uoguelph.caPhone: 905-869-5599
Democracy; citizen engagement; political representation:
Melissa Williams: Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto
Contact:melissa.williams@utoronto.caPhone: 416-978-8220 (office) 647-991-5838 (cell)
Pample the Moose: Open Letter on the Fair Elections Act
Over the weekend, I was asked to sign an open letter regarding the proposed “Fair Elections Act”, a seriously-flawed piece of legislation with an Orwellian name. I was happy to sign it, particularly as the recipient of a diversionary robocall in Guelph on voting day of the last federal election.
Continue readingAutonomy For All: Canada Moving Toward US Style Partisan Administered Elections
I am by no means well read on the nitty gritty of Canadian federal elections, but this strikes me as an incredibly bad idea:
[Former B.C. Chief Electoral Officer Harry Neufeld] says Section 44 of the government’s new legislation would allow all central polling supervisors to be appointed by a riding’s incumbent candidate or the candidate’s party.
“It’s completely inappropriate in a democracy, ” said Neufeld.Under current legislation, central poll supervisors are appointed by returning officers, who are hired by Elections Canada. The supervisors are put in place at polling stations to make sure voting unfolds smoothly.
What could possiblay go wrong with such a well conceived scheme? The government’s answer?
But a spokeswoman for the minister of state for democratic reform says the Elections Act already allows for candidates and parties to appoint other polling station officers.
“This is the case for revising agents in s.33, deputy returning officers in s.34, poll clerks in s.35 and registration officers in s.39 of the existing Canada Elections Act,” said Gabrielle Renaud-Mattey.
Renaud-Mattey also points out that the idea was recommended by the Commons procedure and House affairs committee and that the returning officer can refuse to appoint the central polling supervisor recommended by the candidate or party.
Nowhere in here do we see an actual reason for doing this. That other elections officers might be picked in a similar manner doesn’t tell us whether this is a good idea. The CPS is the chief official at each polling facility, overseeing however many deputy returning officers (who run each individual “poll”) there are, as well as more general issues to that site. Whatever the merits of letting the incumbent party pick the DROs, having the whole operation overseen by a non-partisan appointee who reports to Elections Canada (and owes nothing to the local incumbent party) is self-evidently wise.
That a commons committee dominated by Conservative MPs recommended this is similarly unpersuasive.
The bizarre thing is that the appointment power of Central Poll Supervisors was not among the issues raised by anyone to the government or the Commons’ committee on Procedure & House Affairs. It is a solution in search of a problem. Even if you delve into the actual Committee report on matter, it really appears like Elections Canada asked to solve a different problem (not enough Elections officers supervising) and the Committee just interjected “Great, how about we also let the parties pick these people?” Section I.3:
The Chief Electoral Officer proposes to amend the Act to authorize returning officers to hire additional election officers in situations where the Act does not grant this power. In the last general election, the CEO used his power of adaptation of the Act to enable returning officers to hire additional election officers including poll clerks, registration officers, information officers and central poll supervisors. These additional election officers were required mainly for advance polling stations. The authority to hire additional election officials has been necessitated in recent years by the increasing voter turnout at advance polling stations.
[…]
The Committee, however, raised a related issue in the course of its consideration of this recommendation: permitting candidates or electoral district associations to nominate those individuals who may be selected by returning officers to perform the functions of central poll supervisors, given the important role played by these officials.
Wait, what? What is the argle bargle reasoning here? It’s almost completely non-sequitur to the issue Elections Canada raised (the need for more officials), and the logic is baffling: “given the important role played by these officials.” Yes, the role is important, why does that make partisan control a good idea?
The whole raison d’etre of having a thing like Elections Canada is to ensure the government of the day cannot easily manipulate election outcomes. Everything that moves away from that goal must be viewed with extreme skepticism. This isn’t quite Katherine Harris giving the 2000 election to George Bush, but it’s a couple steps in that direction.
It is true the Returns Officers (still picked by Elections Canada) can reject particular nominees under the proposed changes, but that puts the onus on Elections Canada to find reason to reject specific individuals. The practical reality is this won’t happen very often, as most partisan shenanigans will tend to fly under the radar, and is entirely reactive to people who have behaved in sufficiently egregiously partisan ways while acting in election oversight capacities.
Even relatively honest people so appointed are now aware their role as CPS is a result of the incumbent party picking them, so their loyalty goes that way, rather than to Elections Canada. If they want to be picked again (or have other ambitions in that party) they will need to do a “good” job by the party’s reckoning. I realize nearly everyone working on elections has personal opinions and many may be loyal party members, but that is still materially different from getting your election job as a result of partisan loyalty. It’s safe to assume the people picked will not be picked because of their ability to run a clean election as the top criteria.
In what I am sure is an unrelated matter, the Committee supports increasing the pay rates for Elections workers & officers.
What’s doubly alarming is that neither the NDP or Liberals, who have representation on this committee dissented over this point. The NDP’s report only disputes 3 unrelated issues, and the Liberals didn’t seem to even issue a dissent.
I hope I am missing some great countervailing control that makes partisan manipulation of election conduct still a very difficult and risky proposition but I’m not seeing any merits in this. At the very least it just creates a system of partisan patronage, even if the people picked do their jobs with reasonable honesty, the prospect for graft is real.
I doubt most Canadians will know that when they go to vote in 2015, all the leading officials at their polling place are partisan picks. It certainly changes how I view the process of voting, and undermines confidence in the system.
Continue readingAutonomy For All: Canada Moving Toward US Style Partisan Administered Elections
I am by no means well read on the nitty gritty of Canadian federal elections, but this strikes me as an incredibly bad idea: [Former B.C. Chief Electoral Officer Harry Neufeld] says Section 44 of the government’s new legislation would allow all central polling supervisors to be appointed by a
Continue readingAutonomy For All: Canada Moving Toward US Style Partisan Administered Elections
I am by no means well read on the nitty gritty of Canadian federal elections, but this strikes me as an incredibly bad idea: [Former B.C. Chief Electoral Officer Harry Neufeld] says Section 44 of the government’s new legislation would allow all central polling supervisors to be appointed by a
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading. – Alison and PressProgress both discuss how Brad Butt’s attempt to defend voter suppression is based on what even he had to concede was nothing short of legislative fraud. And Stephen Maher notes that the Cons’ unilateral rewrite of election rules figures to
Continue readingAccidental Deliberations: Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading. – Murray Dobbin points to the oil sector’s utter domination of Canada’s federal political scene. And Dr. Dawg sums up the problem: Briefly, the Harperium has now taken to grossly misusing the state apparatus to spy upon and intimidate citizens who dare to disagree
Continue reading