5 things you need to know about Orwellian “Fair” Elections Act
Updated Feb. 10. The Conservative government tabled their so-called Fair Elections Act in the House of Commons last week — 70 weeks late. Pierre Poilievre, the minister of state for democratic reform, claimed the changes will “increase democracy.” Twenty-four hours later, Poilievre moved to cut off the democratic debate about the bill in the House of Commons. The […]
Updated Feb. 10.
Pierre Poilievre, the minister of state for democratic reform, claimed the changes will “increase democracy.” Twenty-four hours later, Poilievre moved to cut off the democratic debate about the bill in the House of Commons.
The followin day, the Harper government shut down the debate.
This is just the beginning of the government’s doubespeak on this file.
Given the Conservatives’ track record of ignoring or circumventing Canada’s electoral law, it’s worth fact-checking the spin, so here are 5 things you need to know about the legislation.
1. Conservatives did not consult Elections Canada
On the eve of tabling the bill, Poilievre stood up in the House of Commons on Monday to declare that the government had consulted with Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand. “I did meet with the CEO of Elections Canada some time ago and we had a terrific and a very long meeting, at which I listened carefully to all of his ideas,” Poilievre declared. Not so, Mayrand’s office shot back within minutes.
“The chief electoral officer has not been consulted,” Elections Canada spokesman John Enright said. “There’s been no consultation on the contents of the bill.”
2. Elections Canada wanted investigative powers: request denied and then some.
Elections Canada, facing an intransigent Conservative Party during its investigations, wanted investigative powers. Instead, the bill is proposing to take away power from the agency by moving the Commissioner of Canada Elections office to within the Director of Public Prosecutions.
“The referee should not be wearing a team jersey,” Poilievre explained, revealing the government views the non-partisan, independent agency as an opponent.
The Ottawa Citizen editorial board says this move should be analyzed through the prism of the agency’s voter suppression investigation into fraudulent robocalls in Guelph (using the Conservative Party database of voters) during the 2011 election.
“With another election coming soon, Canadians still don’t know what really happened in 2011 or who was responsible. Mayrand has said that the Commissioner of Canada Elections should have the power to compel testimony; this bill does not create that.”
3. The bill “closes loopholes to big money”… by raising donation and spending limits?
The legislation proposes to increase the maximum donation limit to $1,500 annually, up from the current $1,200. This back and forth from an Ottawa Citizen editorial writer and a columnist sums it up:
I like how the government spins increasing donation and spending limits as “keeping big money out” of politics #cdnpoli
— Kate Heartfield (@kateheartfield) February 4, 2014
So what will this mean?
Fewer people earning a modest income are able to scrounge together anywhere close to the current limit. And which party is best positioned to take advantage of a higher limit? In the first nine months of 2013, the Conservatives had 10,780 donations worth $200 or more, the Liberals had 7,133, and the NDP had 3,492.
On the spending side, the Conservatives are proposing a giant loophole so they can spend more than the election-spending cap. Kady O’Malley of CBC News and the Ottawa Citizen’s Glen McGregor explain:
Also, the costs of calling past donors who gave $20 or more will not be considered a campaign expense. Weird. Call it the RMG provision.
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) February 4, 2014
I’m not sure I see why costs for fundraising from anyone who has donated $20 within the last 5 years should be exempt from expense limits.
— kady o’malley (@kady) February 4, 2014
4. Make it harder for First Nations, youth and poor people to vote
The bill proposes to tighten up voter identification rules and to eliminate the practice of “vouching” for other voters who lack proper identification at polling stations. It isn’t tough to figure out who is likely not to have government-issued ID: First Nations, students and people who live in poverty.
“One might have thought that when the Conservative government finally got around to reforming election law, it would be to try to prevent the kind of voter suppression and electoral fraud Canada saw in the 2011 election. But when they said they would make it harder to break the rules, it seems they were talking about cracking down on homeless voters, not party bagmen,” the Citizen wrote Tuesday to prove a point.
The bill also proposes to ban Elections Canada advertising to encourage people to vote. That ban is so sweeping that it will put an end to Elections Canada kits for schools designed to teach kids about democracy and voting in Canada.
Call this the one-two punch of voter suppression.
5. Rush and cut off the debate on complex legislation
Procedural and data wizard Alice Funke of Pundits’ Guide sums this up.
Sorry, the govt is tabling a huge bill on Electoral Reform today, w/no consultation, & 2nd reading starts TOMORROW??? Alarm bells !!!
— Pundits’ Guide (@punditsguide) February 4, 2014
Our journalism is powered by readers like you.
We’re an award-winning non-profit news organization that covers topics like social and economic inequality, big business and labour, and right-wing extremism.
Help us build so we can bring to light stories that don’t get the attention they deserve from Canada’s big corporate media outlets.