{~_~} Раиса
2014-04-18 00:33:49 UTC
Ottawa Citizen - April 17, 2014
Tories spurn NDP request to start over on elections bill
OTTAWA — The federal government has rejected a request from the NDP to
withdraw its controversial bill to overhaul Canada’s election law in
favor of a new draft that reflects parliamentary consensus.
The request came Thursday from NDP MP Craig Scott, who wrote to
Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre. Without a “fresh start” to
the bill, Scott warned, the damage to Canadians’ trust in democracy
could be “long-lasting and irreparable.”
He wrote that the NDP’s proposal was offered with a “constructive
spirit” and the party is prepared to work into the summer on a new bill
with other MPs.
“Taking a collective step back and starting fresh would be welcomed by
Canadians.”
But within hours, Poilievre made it clear the government will not grant
Scott’s request.
In a statement to the Citizen, Poilievre said his bill is “common sense,
reasonable and supported by everyday Canadians.”
“We will move ahead with this bill and encourage the opposition to
support it as well.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Debate has been polarized since Bill C-23 was introduced in the Commons
in February. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Poilievre have defended
the “Fair Elections Act,” saying it would improve the electoral system
and crack down on those who violate campaign rules. The Tories want the
bill passed by the end of June.
But opposition parties argue the Conservatives are trying to rig future
elections in favour of their party and ram the legislation through
Parliament.
At parliamentary hearings, independent experts ranging from the chief
electoral officer to the country’s former auditor general have also
expressed concern — particularly about measures they say could
disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters by banning vouching and voter
information cards.
“These self-serving changes are causing people to lose faith in our
democratic system,” Scott wrote to Poilievre.
“It is your responsibility, as Minister of State for Democratic Reform,
to take the necessary steps to restore Canadians’ faith in our
democratic system. I urge you to withdraw Bill C-23 in order for us to
start fresh and work together on a more consensus-based approach to
improving the Canada Elections Act.”
Scott, a rookie MP who previously taught law at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall,
wrote that politicians have an obligation to work together, particularly
when it comes to “changing the rules that govern our democracy.”
Earlier this week, a Conservative-dominated Senate committee that had
been asked by the government to study the bill released an interim
report recommending nine changes.
Some of the proposals would address critics’ concerns the bill would
muzzle the chief electoral officer and give the Conservative party an
unfair edge on how much money it can spend during campaigns.
Poilievre said he will “defend every single measure in the bill” but is
also prepared to consider the proposed amendments with an “open mind.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Opposition parties say the Senate’s suggestions don’t go far enough and
are part of a government strategy to appear conciliatory when it still
plans to proceed with the bill’s most damaging elements.
___________________________________________
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 incumbent candidate would
select the central poll supervisors in addition to the deputy returning
officers, whom they already select. Poll clerks would continue to be
selected by the candidate who finished second in the previous election,
or by the riding association or party backing the candidate.
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.
Senate panel to push for substantive change to fair elections act
Do you have the right ID to cast a ballot in a federal election?
Election bill doesn't close parties' privacy gaps
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.
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer. (Sean
Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
"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.
Marc Mayrand 20140306
Marc Mayrand, chief electoral officer, arrives on March 6 at the
procedure and House affairs committee hearing on Bill C-23, which would
make changes to Canadian election law. (Justin Tang/Canadian Press)
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 receipts
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."
Minister of State (Democratic Reform) Pierre Poilievre in House
Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre has staunchly defended his
controversial elections overhaul, insisting Canadians believe it is fair
to expect that people bring ID when they show up to vote. (Sean
Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
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.
Tories spurn NDP request to start over on elections bill
OTTAWA — The federal government has rejected a request from the NDP to
withdraw its controversial bill to overhaul Canada’s election law in
favor of a new draft that reflects parliamentary consensus.
The request came Thursday from NDP MP Craig Scott, who wrote to
Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre. Without a “fresh start” to
the bill, Scott warned, the damage to Canadians’ trust in democracy
could be “long-lasting and irreparable.”
He wrote that the NDP’s proposal was offered with a “constructive
spirit” and the party is prepared to work into the summer on a new bill
with other MPs.
“Taking a collective step back and starting fresh would be welcomed by
Canadians.”
But within hours, Poilievre made it clear the government will not grant
Scott’s request.
In a statement to the Citizen, Poilievre said his bill is “common sense,
reasonable and supported by everyday Canadians.”
“We will move ahead with this bill and encourage the opposition to
support it as well.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Debate has been polarized since Bill C-23 was introduced in the Commons
in February. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Poilievre have defended
the “Fair Elections Act,” saying it would improve the electoral system
and crack down on those who violate campaign rules. The Tories want the
bill passed by the end of June.
But opposition parties argue the Conservatives are trying to rig future
elections in favour of their party and ram the legislation through
Parliament.
At parliamentary hearings, independent experts ranging from the chief
electoral officer to the country’s former auditor general have also
expressed concern — particularly about measures they say could
disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters by banning vouching and voter
information cards.
“These self-serving changes are causing people to lose faith in our
democratic system,” Scott wrote to Poilievre.
“It is your responsibility, as Minister of State for Democratic Reform,
to take the necessary steps to restore Canadians’ faith in our
democratic system. I urge you to withdraw Bill C-23 in order for us to
start fresh and work together on a more consensus-based approach to
improving the Canada Elections Act.”
Scott, a rookie MP who previously taught law at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall,
wrote that politicians have an obligation to work together, particularly
when it comes to “changing the rules that govern our democracy.”
Earlier this week, a Conservative-dominated Senate committee that had
been asked by the government to study the bill released an interim
report recommending nine changes.
Some of the proposals would address critics’ concerns the bill would
muzzle the chief electoral officer and give the Conservative party an
unfair edge on how much money it can spend during campaigns.
Poilievre said he will “defend every single measure in the bill” but is
also prepared to consider the proposed amendments with an “open mind.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Opposition parties say the Senate’s suggestions don’t go far enough and
are part of a government strategy to appear conciliatory when it still
plans to proceed with the bill’s most damaging elements.
___________________________________________
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 incumbent candidate would
select the central poll supervisors in addition to the deputy returning
officers, whom they already select. Poll clerks would continue to be
selected by the candidate who finished second in the previous election,
or by the riding association or party backing the candidate.
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.
Senate panel to push for substantive change to fair elections act
Do you have the right ID to cast a ballot in a federal election?
Election bill doesn't close parties' privacy gaps
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.
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer. (Sean
Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
"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.
Marc Mayrand 20140306
Marc Mayrand, chief electoral officer, arrives on March 6 at the
procedure and House affairs committee hearing on Bill C-23, which would
make changes to Canadian election law. (Justin Tang/Canadian Press)
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 receipts
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."
Minister of State (Democratic Reform) Pierre Poilievre in House
Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre has staunchly defended his
controversial elections overhaul, insisting Canadians believe it is fair
to expect that people bring ID when they show up to vote. (Sean
Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
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.