Bill C-23 Passed, Stinkers Included

Whatever amendments were made to Bill C-23, they didn't address much of anything that I raised as problematic in my earlier analysis of the first draft tabled in the House of Commons.

Full text here.

Never before have I seen a piece of legislation so clearly designed to "stack the deck" in Canada's elections.

At this point, the only politician to say something clear about what they would do with C-23 is Justin Trudeau.

There is no "nuanced" or "reasonable" position that supports Bill C-23.  It is a blatant attack on Canada's democracy and the institutions responsible for implementing and safeguarding it.  Bill C-23 is designed by the Harper Government to allow them to stack the deck by cheating in ways that I think will shock most Canadians next election.  

CPC Lied To Elections Canada On RoboCalls?

The corruption that is the CPC's actions in the 2011 election continues to fester.

The most recent instalment comes to us via Stephen Maher's latest column.

In an email May 1, party lawyer Arthur Hamilton told Elections Canada that Conservative call centre workers were not advising voters that Elections Canada had changed the location of polling stations, and that the party had not advised voters to go to a polling station an hour and a half from their home. 

But a report released by Elections Canada last month includes a script that shows the party’s callers were telling voters that Elections Canada had changed the location of polling stations, and investigators found one voter who was directed to a polling station 740 kilometres away. 

The report from Elections Canada found that there was no evidence of a conspiracy to prevent Canadians from voting, but comparing the script included in the report to emails obtained under access-to-information legislation raises questions about whether the Conservatives have been honest about their use of political calls. 

Hamilton sent his email to Elections Canada as the agency was fielding complaints from voters who had been given bad information about their polling station by Conservative campaigns. 

Elections Canada lawyer Ageliki Apostolakos emailed Hamilton on the evening of April 29.“In the course of the last half-hour, Elections Canada has heard that two representatives of the Conservative campaign office are communicating with electors in two electoral districts to inform them that their polling station has changed to another location,” she wrote. 

Hamilton replied 27 hours later, just after midnight on May 1. He wrote that because Elections Canada changed some polling station locations “a number of our candidates have had to confirm the proper location of polling stations to a number of supporters during their respective get-out-the-vote efforts.” 

“The calls being made by our candidates request the voter to confirm his or her polling location. There is no indication by the caller that the location may have changed, or words to that effect. And no voter is being directed to a polling location one and a half hours away from the correct polling location.” 

But a script included in Elections Canada’s report shows that workers at Conservative call centres were told to deliver the following line: “Elections Canada has changed some voting locations at the last moment. To be sure could you tell me the address of where you’re voting?” 

Elections Canada had asked the Conservatives not to communicate with voters about the location of their polling stations.

So, just how much did the CPC withhold from Elections Canada investigators?  A lot.  Enough to call into question the conclusions in the recent Elections Canada report which concluded that there isn't enough evidence to lay charges.

Down in the comments is a bit more interesting information from Nadine Lumley:

Pierre Poilievre owned a robocall company called 3D Contact Inc and was dating Jenni Bryne who controlled CIMS database during last election. 

"When Poilievre was running for election in 2004, he stated that he was co-owner of a political research company called 3D Contact Inc. According to the company profile, these 'contacts' were Stephen Harper, Ted Morton and Stockwell Day. His partner was Jonathan Denis, who later became Minister of Housing in the Alberta government." 

Micheal Sona, Director of Communications, was roomates with Chris Crawford, the person responsible for managing CIMS Database/List at the time. 

"Rougier was key member of the target seat team, working directly under campaign manager Jenni Byrne" His phone used to call Rack9  

The Rob Ford Campaign, aka part 2 of Steve's Ford BBQ trifecta hat trick wishlist, also used 3D Contact. 

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/07/18/poilievre-brings-robocalls-expertise-to-new-job/
http://www.anonpaste.me/anonpaste2/index.php?5316b0ceba304db3#YH2hGWBgyB8ylA9eZfYSfM7U1mnnvELkutPzE6LkxcQ=
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=6072305

Proof absolute?  Not quite, but enough to continue to call into question the CPC's claims of being "clean", and more than enough for voters to seriously question the motives behind much of what is lurking in the bowels of the "Fair Elections Act".

Speculation: Harper's Pugilistic Stance On Russia/Ukraine

Harper's stance on Ukraine does not make a lot of sense in terms of the general back and forth of diplomacy and foreign affairs.

Canada is in no position to dictate to Russia on matters military - a country of 143,000,000 can raise a much more substantial military than one of 35,000,000.  The tit-for-tat of expelling diplomats is unproductive to say the least.

Granted, Harper has been playing the "little boy in short pants" when it comes to foreign affairs for quite some time, so his childish approach to Russia is not terribly surprising.

In many ways, Putin's aggressive approach to foreign affairs is complementary to Harper's desire to hold on to power at any cost.  Harper thinks that when he plays the "military leader" that his polling numbers improve, and lately they have been in the toilet (deservedly so).

However, I don't think it is merely a matter of polling numbers in Harper's mind.  He will not call an election unless he is pretty much confident that he will win.

We have three basic scenarios for the next election in front of us:

1.  The next election will be in October of 2015 based on the 2006 "Fixed Election Dates" Law (You know, the one Harper ignored in 2008).

The polling numbers at the moment suggest to me very strongly that this will not happen.  Elections Canada will, as required by the law in Bill C-16, establish polling stations and suchlike for the third Monday in October.  That doesn't mean that the Governor General will have dropped the writ sometime in September.  The dissolution of parliament for a general election still remains an act of the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.  Harper is not going to give that advice if he thinks he is going to lose.

2.  Failing actual compliance with his 2006 law, the Constitution allows for a Parliament to last no longer than five years, which would place the next election at the end of 2016.

• 4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members. (81)

  The dissolution of parliament happens more or less automatically at this point.  Traditionally, governments have called the next election sometime near the end of the fourth year of their mandate but the option exists quite legally to stretch that into 2016.
  
  3.  Section 4 of the Charter contains a very interesting clause that we should pay attention to, though. Section 4(2) provides for an extension of the existing parliament in times of war.

Marginal note:

Continuation in special circumstances 

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. (82)

If this doesn't have you feeling a little uneasy, consider the the apparent desire of Putin to rekindle the old Cold War flames, and Harper's willingness to play to that same tune.  While other world leaders are carefully playing their cards where Russia is concerned, we find Harper doubling down and being quite aggressively pugilistic.

If Harper and Putin can provoke open conflict between Russia and NATO both parties have much to gain politically.  Putin gets to keep playing his uber-macho "returning Russia to its former glory" routine, and open conflict would give Harper the excuse he would need to defer an election past 2016 even if his polling numbers remain where they have been for most of the last year.

It's a chilling thought that a Canadian Prime Minister could be considering this kind of approach.  But that said, given the obvious attempts in Bill C-23 to rejig our elections apparatus to give the ruling party an advantage, it is one that Canadians should be aware of.

An Open Letter From Academics on Bill C-23

Published in The Globe and Mail.

Highlights:  (much of which have been discussed in more depth on this blog)

Investigating electoral fraud. Bill C-23 fails to provide the Commissioner of Elections power to compel witness testimony in investigating systematic electoral fraud such as the 2011 “robocalls” scandal. Witnesses with knowledge of fraudulent activity can – and regularly do – refuse to provide information to investigators. The bill’s proposed voter contact registry will not greatly enhance the capacity to prosecute fraud, and its increased penalties for fraud do nothing if investigators cannot prove crimes. 

Polling supervision. Under Bill C-23, winning parties will appoint election poll supervisors – a further intrusion of partisanship in the electoral process, and one that creates an advantage for the incumbent party. The government has not addressed objections to this measure, and there is no sound rationale for it. 

Voter turnout. With the sole exception of school programs, such as Student Vote, the Senate amendments retain the gag on Elections Canada’s efforts to encourage voter turnout. Senator Linda Frum has asserted that Elections Canada is in a “conflict of interest” when it promotes turnout, claiming that heightened participation comes at the expense of electoral integrity. This position is unjustified in both fact and logic. Public outreach that encourages all citizens to vote – not just those who support one party or another – is central to the mandate of electoral commissions worldwide, such as those in Australia, India, and New Zealand. 

The Charter guarantee of the right to vote. By eliminating vouching and refusing voter information cards as proof of address, the bill undermines the right to vote protected by Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional entitlement so fundamental that it cannot be limited by the Charter’s “notwithstanding” clause. Where governments require voter identification, international best practices require that governments issue free ID to all eligible voters. This bill does the opposite: it takes away existing forms of cost-free ID. The Senate’s proposed requirement of “letters of attestation” from First Nations, homeless shelters and elder-care facilities would offload government responsibility onto under-resourced communities without resolving the underlying constitutional issues. There is no doubt that the bill’s voter ID restrictions will be challenged in court for violating the constitutionally protected right to vote. By insisting on these measures, the government invites costly legal battles for no clear public end. 

Elections Canada. As former auditor-general Sheila Fraser has persuasively argued, Bill C-23 undermines Elections Canada, an internationally renowned non-partisan agency. The damage done by the government’s gratuitous public attacks against Ms. Fraser and the Chief Electoral Officer goes even deeper. By casting doubt on the non-partisanship of independent officers of Parliament, the government unsettles the delicate balance of powers that secures our democratic system of government. 

The Senate committee has failed to respond adequately to the many legitimate criticisms of the other features of Bill C-23. These include campaign finance rules, the Treasury Board’s veto power over Elections Canada’s appointment of specialized staff, and the failure to require political parties to provide receipts for electoral expenses (even though they are reimbursed more than $30-million at taxpayer expense).

Bill C-23 is the most horrid piece of legislation that I have ever seen a government put forward.  Other governments in the past have pushed through legislation which has been seen as an attack on one region of the country or another.  Never have I seen a government attack the fundamental basis of democracy in Canada.

Democratic rights of citizens 

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The right to vote is central to Canada's democracy.  The government exists at the collective will of the people, as expressed through voting.  Never before has the government attacked the right of Canadians to vote so blatantly, nor in a manner so clearly designed around achieving some kind of partisan advantage.

This is Canada, not Baathist Iraq under Sadam Hussein.  We deserve better than this from our government.  Instead we get deafening silence from the PMO, and blustering stupidity from the minister responsible for this piece of legislation, Pierre Poilievre.

Stealing Our Democracy: Linda Frum, Talking Points and the Dumbf

*Dumbf = dumbfuckery - a condition that appears to be unique to the creation of Harper Government talking points regarding Bill C-23.

On Huffington Post this morning, I read Michael Bolen's commentary on Bill C-23 which led me to Linda Frum's more verbose op-ed defending her TWITter position from earlier this week.

Ms. Frum is a shadow of her brother when it comes to writing political polemics, and the Op-Ed which the Globe and Mail had the poor judgement to publish demonstrates that in spades.

According to Ms. Frum, there's a conflict of interest in the mandated missions of Elections Canada.

Here’s the institutional conflict of interest to which I pointed: 

Elections Canada is a bureaucracy with two missions: to ensure the integrity of the voting process and also to promote voter turnout. Those two missions are contradictory. You want the biggest vote total? Accept every ballot. You want to eliminate voter fraud? Eliminating improper ballots may reduce vote totals. 

In attempting to achieve a balance between these two different missions, the evidence suggests that Elections Canada has favoured its turnout goals over preserving the integrity of the process.

Seriously?  Ms. Frum's "evidence" for this claim?

Elections expert Harry Neufeld – no supporter of the Harper government’s proposed reforms – nevertheless reported that “some 11.8 per cent of all registration activity on Election Day in May, 2011, showed serious errors, according to the national audit undertaken for this review. That … equals 114,693 voters potentially having the validity of their votes put in question.” How serious are those irregularities? We don’t know, because Elections Canada does not investigate. 

Oh ... right.  So, along come the Conservatives with a piece of legislation that responds to this issue by making it harder for so many more Canadians to vote.  Okay, the Neufeld report identifies a significant percent of election day voter registrations had errors in them.  Rather than order an in-depth investigation of the errors and addressing the causes, the Conservatives have written a law which is clearly designed to benefit their electoral goals over addressing the actual problem. 

If these "serious errors" are the result of clerical errors (incorrect transcriptions of addresses into the voter registry, misspelling names etc.), that doesn't speak to any kind of widespread voter fraud, but rather a series of issues with procedures and training.  

Consider the most problematic of all forms of voting: where the voter has no identification. In those cases, current law allows an acquaintance, friend or relative of the voter to “vouch for” that person’s right to vote. The voter in question may be a legitimate voter who genuinely lacks ID. The voter may be a visiting relative who isn’t entitled to vote in that district – or even to vote in Canada at all. Or the voter may be valid – but have already used their ID to vote once that day and is now lining up without ID to do it a second time.

This is classic Harper Government tactics - assert that something is happening, and then claim that it is an enormous problem.  Vouching has been part of our voting system for decades.  To the best of my knowledge, there is not a shred of evidence that there is any significant amount of voter fraud taking place using this mechanism, much less on a scale which has a chance of materially affecting the outcome of an election.

One of the key issues in Bill C-23 is that it is attempting to address "voter fraud", when there is precious little evidence of Voter fraud in Canada.  On the other hand, we have very clear evidence of electoral campaign fraud starting in 2006 (In-and-Out Scandal), and 2011 (Robocalls) perpetrated by the campaign machinery of the Conservatives Party.  These misdeeds are not addressed at all by C-23, and arguably clauses in C-23 are designed to further enable political parties to engage in this kind of electoral cheating.

Notable is that nobody in the CPC seems to be standing up and saying that C-23 is wrong.  Nary a peep from backbench MPs, or the party apparatus at the riding level.  Remember this next election - the Harper Government has not chosen to represent the interests of Canadians, but rather to entrench its own cynical political interests in law.

Stealing Our Democracy: The Senate Takes A Swing

Okay, now the Senate is talking about wanting to see some amendments to the Harper Government's bill to undermine Canada's democracy.

The interim report recommends: 

— Removing a provision which would allow political parties to exempt from their election expenses any money spent to raise donations from anyone who has donated at least $20 over the previous five years. Experts have called this an unenforceable loophole that would allow rich, established parties with big donors' lists to spend untold millions more during campaigns. 

— Requiring automated call service providers to retain records of campaign robocalls for three years, rather than the one year retention proposed in the bill. 

— Clarifying that Elections Canada's reduced role in promoting democracy and voter participation will not affect the independent agency's involvement in Student Vote or other educational programs aimed at elementary and high school students. 

— Specifying that both the chief electoral officer, who administers election laws, and the commissioner of elections, who enforces the law and investigates breaches, be able to inform the public of any problems they uncover in the electoral system. 

— Specifically authorizing continued communications between the chief electoral officer and the commissioner, whom the bill proposes to hive off Elections Canada and move under the auspices of the director of public prosecutions. 

— Encouraging Elections Canada to post photos of candidates on ballots, to help voters who can't read. 

— Encouraging Elections Canada to provide information about braille ballots to blind voters and to conduct a pilot project using specialized voting kiosks for the blind.

The first change on the list actually addresses one of the problematic aspects of the bill, but it is one that I consider comparatively minor.  It's a loophole that allows parties to spend stupid amounts of money contacting "previous donors" - those are people who are to a large extent already engaged in the political system.

However, it does not address the key problems with C-23 that have been identified on this blog and by others.  They have not addressed at all the issues with removing vouching, voter id requirements, the appointment of polling station officials, investigation of fraud in the electoral system and so on.

Harper's Senators are apparently acting as the trained seals that Harper likes.  They are proposing a bunch of amendments to address the "shortcomings" of the bill which do nothing to address the key problems which turn Canada's electoral system into a partisan farce on the scale of elections in Ghadaffi's Libya.  These aren't meaningful amendments, this is chaff thrown up to distract Canadians from the vileness of C-23.

Con$ Only Want Cons To Vote

Bill C-23 is an appalling piece of legislation.  It is filled with more underhanded deceitfulness than any piece of legislation should ever contain.  If there ever was any doubt about the motivations of the Harper Government in tabling this piece of poison, I think Senator Linda Frum's comments on Twitter yesterday did that in:

Wait a second, the argument basically becomes "a fair election is one where the motivated voters win".  That is, of course, far from the truth.  In our democracy, it is a plurality of votes cast that wins. In the hyper-partisan world of The Harper Government, it is instinctive for the Con$ to argue that getting out the vote is necessarily a "partisan" activity.  If you aren't a Con$ supporter, they would really much rather that you stayed home.

Elections Canada encouraging _all_ voters to get out and vote works against the Con$ - they know full well that historically, the majority of Canadians will vote against them if they actually vote.  So, they claim that it is a "conflict of interest".  Elections Canada however, rightly recognizes that there is a threshold voter turnout below which the legitimacy of an election's outcome becomes questionable in the collective minds of Canadians.  I'm not sure what that line is, but I would imagine that if only 20% of the eligible voters turned out, that the 80% who did not vote might rightly argue that the government elected has no legitimate mandate to govern.  

A free and fair election is one not only where a government is elected, but that it is seen to be legitimately elected by a plurality of the eligible voters casting their ballots.

We all know that parties spend huge money on their GOTV efforts on voting day.  We also know that the Con$ in particular go out of their way to get out _their_ vote and if they can discourage non-supporters from voting (e.g. Robocall Scandal), they will do that too.

In an election, parties have a natural desire to ensure that their supporters vote.  However, party supporter lists do not include all voters, and _all_ voters have the right to vote and should be encouraged to do so.  

The fact that the Harper Government thieves are arguing that a non-partisan GOTV effort is a "conflict of interest" tells us that in their mind that their interests are purely to discourage those who are not partisan supporters from participating in our democracy.  This is NOT democratic.

Bill C-23: Accountability for Thee Not For Me

It's not exactly news that Harper has never liked Elections Canada.  In fact, it's less than news.  His outraged utterances about Elections Canada when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition (NCC) in the 1990s set the tone for the content of Bill C-23.

“The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control.” 

In 2001, Stephen Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. That was his opening line in a fundraising letter. 

His loathing for the election overseers was almost pathological, recalls Gerry Nicholls, the conservative commentator who worked with Mr. Harper at the NCC. It was a “blood feud,” he says, one that appears to be “never ending.”

One would have to be blind not to see the blatant and partisan attack on Elections Canada that Bill C-23 so clearly embodies.  It is designed to render it all but impossible for Elections Canada to investigate electoral fraud - in particular of the kind that has been perpetrated by the Harper Conservatives; it constrains the ability of Elections Canada to communicate with the people of Canada at all; it makes the appointment of polling station overseers the domain of incumbent MPs.

There is no coherent response to these criticisms from the Harper Government.  In fact, when so many knowledgeable and experienced people have criticized this bill for the obvious problems in it, it comes as no big surprise that the Conservatives have turned to attacking the message bearers:

“His recommendations really boil down to three broad requirements for him,” Poilievre told the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee as it launched a “pre-study” of the bill before the House of Commons considers amendments or passes it. 

“He wants more power, a bigger budget and less accountability.”

Considering the damage that this bill does to holding our politicians and their parties accountable for their antics during an election, it seems more and more clear that the party who promised Canadians greater accountability and transparency in government is in fact delivering quite the opposite.

Stealing Democracy Part XII: More Revelations On Quebec, and Bill C-23

As more incidents of voter suppression in Quebec come to the surface, the picture starts to become a little more clear.  Yesterday, we learned about a Green Party candidate who has been denied registration as a voter.

The issue comes down to the interpretation of "domiciled":

The debate over who can and can’t vote in Quebec stems from different interpretations of the domicile rule, which requires all electors to have been domiciled in Quebec for six months. 

Stéphane Beaulac, a professor in the faculty of law at the Université de Montréal, explains the domicile rule is based on intention. 

“The difference between residing somewhere and being domicile somewhere is that to be domicile, you need to be a resident, but have the intention of making it the centre of your life, of where you live.” 

Beaulac said that a person can have more than one residence, but only one domicile. He said it’s up to Quebec revision officers to make that distinction.

Stealing Democracy Part XI: Quebec As A Model For C-23

What kind of fuckery is this?

I had heard the Quebec had made some changes to the requirements for registering as a voter.  I had no idea that it was the inspiration for C-23's voter id requirements which I have analyzed in depth already.

She, again asked me what documentation I had, and I again began to list it out when she told me that my documentation did not seem to be adequate. I pulled out the voter's manual that had been mailed to me by the organization for which she worked and pointed out that it said I merely needed two identity papers to register, and that I had the birth certificate and drivers license which were given as examples. 

She pointed to the Can You Vote section where the conditions for voting were listed. She said that I did not meet the third condition, "domiciled in Quebec for at least the past six months" and that my documents did nothing to prove that. I insisted that I had gone online to find out the additional documentation I'd need and had come prepared with bank statements and letters from businesses and elected representatives. She rejected that such information had been put out by her organization.

I cannot believe how arbitrary this sounds.  Basically the woman at the voter registration office is arbitrarily deciding that perfectly legitimate documentation is somehow inadequate.

This is nothing less than deliberately throwing obstacles in the way of someone participating in our electoral system.  It is as much a violation of the basic tenets of democracy in this nation as the voter id and giving control over the voting stations to partisan employees is in Bill C-23.

Electoral reform needs to make easier for more people to engage in our electoral process, not shut more people out.  Marois' electoral reforms in Quebec do not do that, and neither will Bill C-23.

Stealing Democracy Part X: How Far Does The Rot Go?

There is no doubt any more that Bill C-23 is deliberately designed to enable the CPC (or other political parties) to engage in the kind of electoral fraud that the CPC has attempted, and been caught out at repeatedly in the past.  Worse, it goes so far as to politicize the staffing of voting stations.  None of this can end well.

Consider the following list of malfeasance on the part of the CPC since 2006:

1. The "In and Out" Fundraising Scheme (Money Laundering Fraud) 2006
2. Dean del Mastro is facing charges relating to campaign spending in 2008
3. Peter Penashue forced to resign over campaign spending issues in 2011
4. Robocalls in 2011 (direct voter suppression)
5. Appointment of Mike Duffy to the Senate
6. Appointment of Pamela Wallin to the Senate
7. Appointment of Patrick Brazeau to the Senate
8. Bruce Carson - appointed to be an advisor to Stephen Harper in the PMO - facing criminal fraud charges.
9. Bill C-23 an act designed to undermine our elections system.
10. Bill C-24 which is designed to politicize immigration to an even greater degree, and can be used in conjunction with C-23 for voter suppression.
11. Massive government spending on propaganda campaigns at taxpayer expense.  (Economic Action Plan ads, Canada Job Grant ads, etc)

There's no doubt quite a bit more that has escaped my notice.  

In today's news, we have another addition to the list - Hubert Pichet, policy advisor to Conservative Senators, has been charged with fraud as a result of the RCMP investigation into the Senate.  

We have to ask ourselves how pervasive is the rot in Harper's government?  At the highest levels, appointees to very senior positions are being charged with fraud and other criminal activities.  This is a government that is unique in Canada's history.  Not only is it clearly corrupt, but it is passing laws designed to entrench its particular brand of corruption into our politics for the foreseeable future.

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 following topics only: 

(a) how to become a candidate;
(b) how an elector may have their name added to a list of electors and may have corrections made to information respecting 35  the elector on the list;

(c) how an elector may vote under section 127 and the times, dates and locations for voting;

(d) how an elector may establish their identity and residence in order to vote, including the pieces of identification that they may use to that end; and
(e) the measures for assisting electors with a 5  disability to access a polling station or advance polling station or to mark a ballot.(2) The Chief Electoral Officer shall ensure that any information provided under subsection (1) is is accessible to electors with disabilities.
(3)  The Chief Electoral Officer shall not provide information under this section by the use of calls as defined in section 348.01, that are unsolicited.

The obvious intent is to hamstring Elections Canada, especially in terms of tackling broad based issues like trying to get the voter turnout improved on election day.  But why?  What on earth is bad about encouraging people to vote?

Well, we know that in part, the Conservatives have no love for anyone who doesn't vote their way - as evidenced by the Robocalls scandal, where a bunch of calls were made to divert voters who weren't likely to vote Conservative away from the correct polling stations.  So voter suppression is part of the discussion.  But it doesn't fully explain things for me.

In today's Hill Times, we get a little more insight into what the government's motives are:

The 2008 video that did not run begins with a sketched portrayal of a ballot being cast, then a moving sketch portrayal of a lively rock concert crowd and electronic music, as the images change to include a recycle symbol, with a backdrop of freeways, industry chimney emitters, and then a quiet forest. The brief clip ends with the printed words 'Vote. Shape your world.' 

The ad and two other Elections Canada videos uploaded to YouTube in October 2008, also were cancelled and not aired, said John Enright, communications director at Elections Canada. 

“This advertising campaign was developed for the 2008 federal general election,” Mr. Enright said in an email. “However, the campaign was cancelled by Mr. Mayrand when he became Chief Electoral Officer. The ads were never aired by  Elections Canada.”

This tells us a lot - it basically boils down to the fact that Elections Canada started to create an advertising campaign to encourage younger voters to participate, and did so by playing on issues that the Conservatives don't like - the environment and climate change at the top of the list.

In short, the CPC doesn't like the fact that the Elections Canada ad would have encouraged voters who are more likely to vote against the party dogma.

Just as the Conservative government has been strangling Environment Canada gradually since 2006, and science in general in this country, they will be mightily offended by any department of the government who doesn't toe the party line on a particular subject - regardless of the evidence.

Like the rest of the very dubious provisions in this legislation, it comes down to the Conservatives working very hard to dismantle the very apparatus that ensures that elections in Canada are in fact free, open and fair.  It makes voting against the CPC not merely a vote against them, but rather makes it an act of subversion.

Bill C-23: Stealing Democracy Part VIII: Brad Butt Lies To Parliament

One of the centrepieces of Bill C-23 are a series of measures intended to put a stop to voter fraud.

Central to all of this is the testimony of one MP - Brad Butt who rose in the House of Commons to state the following:

  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there are 30-plus documents that individuals can bring with them when they want to vote that will verify that they are, indeed, the persons they are. 

    Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversificationa question. I think my friend from York South—Weston will appreciate this because, just like the riding I represent, there are a lot of apartment buildings in his riding. I will relate to him something I have actually seen. On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. I have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Why are they doing that? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally. That is going to stop. [emphasis added]

Remember, the House of Commons is part of the legislative branch of our government.  On that basis alone, the words spoken in that chamber are assumed to be truthful at all times.  Just as lying before the Supreme Court carries such fell consequences, those who lie to our parliament are subject to being found in contempt of parliament and punished appropriately by that body.

Perhaps particularly galling about this situation is the fact that Mr. Butt rose and lied to the House of Commons in defence of the changes that Bill C-23 makes to voter identification requirements on voting day.

Then, a few days later, Mr. Butt rises again in the House to tell us that he was "inaccurate" in his earlier statements:

"I made a statement in the House during the debate that is not accurate, and I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed individuals retrieving voter notification cards from the garbage cans or from the mailbox areas of apartment buildings," he said. 

"I have not personally witnessed that activity and want the record to properly show that." [emphasis added]

It seems to me that Mr. Butt has deliberately mislead the House of Commons to defend an appalling piece of legislation with an appalling lie about the extent of alleged voter fraud at the ballot box.

Now we find Prime Minister Harper opening his mouth on the topic, and apparently he doesn't see anything wrong with lying ... as long as it is done by a Conservative MP who "apologizes" for it after the fact:

Harper responded, saying "the member in question" did the right thing by apologizing. 

"He, at his own initiative, brought this to light in the House of Commons and corrected the record, and he is to be commended for doing so," he said.

Given that Mr. Butt so blatantly lied to the House of Commons on this matter at the outset, I am considerably less willing to give Mr. Butt a pass.  Lying to the House of Commons is lying to Canadians - all of us.  His apology is a start, but it does not address the fundamental point - he lied during time limited debate on a bill that is at the centre of the Harper government's legislative agenda.

Mr. Harper's defence of his MP makes me suspect even more that Mr. Butt's lie - and subsequent retraction - may well have been staged.

As for Bill C-23,  I agree with Elections Canada head Marc Mayrand - this bill is profoundly flawed.

C-23: The Theft Of Democracy Part VII

I've more or less gone as far with analyzing the text of C-23 myself at this point in time.  I'm sufficiently convinced that this legislation is nothing more than an overt move on the part of the Harper Conservatives to undermine Canada's democracy, and should be tossed in the garbage bin sooner than later.

However, it is also relevant to discuss the revised Section 44 of the legislation.

Harry Neufeld, who wrote a report on problems in the last federal election, is warning of the potential for more abuse at polling stations if one part of the government's proposed fair elections act goes ahead. 

Neufeld, B.C.'s former chief electoral officer and now an independent electoral management consultant, wrote the compliance review that identified polling problems in the 2011 election and made recommendations on how to fix them. 

He 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.

I don't know about anybody else, but just like the objections I raised regard section 143(3.3), I see enormous problems with having the parties appointing _any_ electoral officials at the polling station level.  There is no need for this, and in fact it calls into question the very credibility of the voting system.  Political parties already have the right to appoint scrutineers to oversee the voting and vote counting processes.  That is as far as their involvement should go.  Anything more than that steps into the realm of electoral manipulation and fraud.

There are already enormous issues with C-23 that give the Harper Party far too much ability to manipulate the voting process as it is, having the right to appoint the staff who oversee the polling station just reeks of not just opportunism, but part of a larger strategy to engage in voter suppression.

C-23 Summarized In A Nutshell

Kind of says it all, IMO:

C-24 In Conjunction With C-23 As Instruments Of Voter Suppression

There has been a lot of attention on Bill C-23 the last week or so, and in particular the parts of it which appear to be tools that can be used for voter suppression.

In discussing the Voter ID requirements of Bill C-23, I became very concerned that this government could well be introducing other legislation which could act in concert with Bill C-23 to suppress the ability of opposition groups to be heard.

Sure enough, Bill C-24 contains some interesting and troubling clauses which dramatically broaden the ability of the government to revoke citizenship.  The proposed section 10(2) reads as follows:

(2) The Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the person, before or after the coming into force of this subsection and while the person was a citizen,(a) was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code of treason and sentenced to imprisonment for life or was convicted of high treason under that section;(b) was convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code — or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section — and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;(c) was convicted of an offence under any of sections 73 to 76 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life because the person acted traitorously;(d) was convicted of an offence under section 78 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life;(e) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 47 of theCriminal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life;(f) was convicted under the National Defence Act of a terrorism offence as defined in subsection 2(1) of that Act and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;(g) was convicted of an offence described in section 16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life; or(h) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

The reference to Canada's Treason laws is a little surprising here.  Perhaps more interesting is the reference to "Terrorism" in S10(2)(b), especially in the context of this government's willingness to claim that opposition groups are "terrorists".  What I don't see in here is anything significant which stays the government's hand.  Instead, it gives the government, and in particular the Minister, excessive powers to act to strip people of their citizenship.  I am not at all convinced that the government cannot apply these same clauses to more than just those who possess citizenship in another country.

10.4 (1) Subsections 10(2) and 10.1(2) do not operate so as to authorize any decision, action or declaration that conflicts with any international human rights instrument regarding statelessness to which Canada is signatory.(2) If an instrument referred to in subsection (1) prohibits the deprivation of citizenship that would render a person stateless, a person who claims that subsection 10(2) or 10.1(2) would operate in the manner described in subsection (1) must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the person is not a citizen of any country of which the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe the person is a citizen.

Take note of the burden of proof requirement in 10.4(2).  This creates a nasty little situation where the person being stripped of citizenship must attempt to prove a negative.  Generally speaking, proving a negative is rhetorically and practically impossible - even with the "on the balance of probabilities" language inserted in the clause.

Bill C-24 creates a situation where anybody who holds dual citizenship is implicitly subject to an additional level of scrutiny in their activities in this country.  Engage with an environmental lobby group?  Better hope that the government doesn't decide that it's a "terrorist organization".

This is an evil little bit of legislation.  The implicit threat it carries is that the government will go after a citizen's right to engage in lawful protest by declaring dissident groups "terrorist" and then using this mechanism to withdraw their citizenship.

What does it mean with respect to C-23?  It means that this government is about to embark on a program of suppressing dissent by having opposition groups that dare criticize its actions declared "terrorists", or possibly even going as far as trying to declare that they were engaging in "treason" of some sort.

The implications are clear enough, the threats are obvious.

Bill C-23: The Theft Of Canada's Democracy - Voter ID : Part V

The Voter ID parts of Bill C-23 are profoundly troubling, and in my view are a giant red flag that this bill should be stopped as soon as possible.  It has the distinct smell about it of turning into a variation on the "Voter ID" laws that have been passed in several US states which ultimately serve as a means to make it impossible for the nation's marginalized populations to exercise their right to vote.

Should you be scared?  Yes.

It took me a while to sort out exactly what has been done with sections 143-146 in bill C-23, because Bill C-23 is a bit of a "scattershot" - lots of "section x is replaced by" and "section y is repealed" in there.  So, I am going to walk through things starting with the existing law (last amended in 2007, it appears).  You don't have to wade through all of this right now, it is here to provide a clear checkpoint back to what the law looks like before C-23.

Admitting Voters

141. Immediately after the ballot box is sealed, the deputy returning officer shall call on the electors to vote.
142. (1) The deputy returning officer shall ensure that every elector is admitted into the polling station and that the electors are not dis- turbed when they are in or near the polling sta- tion.
(2) A deputy returning officer may, if he or she considers it advisable, direct that not more than one elector for each voting compartment may at any time enter the room where the vot- ing is held.
143. (1) Each elector, on arriving at the polling station, shall give his or her name and address to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, and, on request, to a candidate or his or her representative.
(2) If the poll clerk determines that the elec- tor’s name and address appear on the list of electors or that the elector is allowed to vote under section 146, 147, 148 or 149, then, sub- ject to subsection (3), the elector shall provide to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the following proof of his or her identity and residence:(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that gov- ernment, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or
(b) two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address.
(2.1) For greater certainty, the Chief Elec- toral Officer may authorize as a piece of identi- fication for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) any document, regardless of who issued it.
(2.2) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b), a document issued by the Government of Canada that certifies that a person is registered as an In- dian under the Indian Act constitutes an autho- rized piece of identification.
(3) An elector may instead prove his or her identity and residence by taking the prescribed oath if he or she is accompanied by an elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling division and who
(a) provides to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the piece or pieces of iden- tification referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (b), respectively; and
(b) vouches for him or her on oath in the prescribed form.
(3.1) If the address contained in the piece or pieces of identification provided under subsec- tion (2) or paragraph (3)(a) does not prove the elector’s residence but is consistent with infor- mation related to the elector that appears on the list of electors, the elector’s residence is deemed to have been proven.
(3.2) Despite subsection (3.1), a deputy re- turning officer, poll clerk, candidate or candi- date’s representative who has reasonable doubts concerning the residence of an elector referred to in that subsection may request that the elector take the prescribed oath, in which case his or her residence is deemed to have been proven only if he or she takes that oath.
(4) If the deputy returning officer is satisfied that an elector’s identity and residence have been proven in accordance with subsection (2) or (3), the elector’s name shall be crossed off the list and, subject to section 144, the elector shall be immediately allowed to vote.(5) No elector shall vouch for more than one elector at an election.
(6) An elector who has been vouched for at an election may not vouch for another elector at that election.
(7) The Chief Electoral Officer shall publish each year, and within three days after the issue of a writ, in a manner that he or she considers appropriate, a notice setting out the types of identification that are authorized for the pur- pose of paragraph (2)(b). The first annual no- tice shall be published no later than six months after the coming into force of this subsection. 2000, c. 9, s. 143; 2007, c. 21, s. 21, c. 37, s. 1.
143.1 If a person decides to prove his or her identity and residence by taking the prescribed oath, the person who administers the oath shall, before doing so, orally advise the oath taker of the qualifications for electors and the penalty that may be imposed under this Act on a person who is convicted of voting or attempting to vote at an election knowing that he or she is not qualified as an elector.
2007, c. 21, s. 21.
144. A deputy returning officer, poll clerk, candidate or candidate’s representative who has reasonable doubts concerning whether a person intending to vote is qualified as an elector may request that the person take the prescribed oath, and the person shall not be allowed to vote un- less he or she takes that oath.
2000, c. 9, s. 144; 2007, c. 21, s. 21.
144.1 Once an elector has been given a bal- lot, no person shall require the elector to prove his or her identity and residence in accordance with subsection 143(2) or (3).2007, c. 21, s. 21.
145. [Repealed, 2007, c. 21, s. 21]146. If a name and address in the list of
electors correspond so closely with the name and address of a person who demands a ballot as to suggest that it is intended to refer to that person, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes the prescribed oath.2000, c. 9, s. 146; 2007, c. 21, s. 22.
147. If a person asks for a ballot at a polling station after someone else has voted under that person’s name, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes the prescribed oath.
2000, c. 9, s. 147; 2007, c. 21, s. 22.
148. If an elector claims that his or her name has been crossed off in error from an official list of electors under subsection 176(2) or (3), the elector shall not be allowed to vote unless the returning officer verifies that the elector’s name was crossed off in error or the elector takes the oath referred to in section 147.2000, c. 9, s. 148; 2007, c. 21, s. 22. 

After Bill C-23 is passed (assuming no consequential amendments), the revised law will look like this:  (emphasis added where there are changes made)

Admitting Voters141. Immediately after the ballot box is sealed, the deputy returning officer shall call on the electors to vote.142. (1) The deputy returning officer shall ensure that every elector is admitted into the polling station and that the electors are not dis- turbed when they are in or near the polling sta- tion.(2) A deputy returning officer may, if he or she considers it advisable, direct that not more than one elector for each voting compartment may at any time enter the room where the vot- ing is held.143. (1) Each elector, on arriving at the polling station, shall give his or her name and address to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, and, on request, to a candidate or his or her representative.

Proof of identity and residence
(2) If the poll clerk determines that the elector’s name and address appear on the list of electors or that the elector is allowed to vote under section 146, 147, 148 or 149, then the elector shall provide the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk with the following proof of the elector’sidentity and residence:

(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that gov- ernment, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or

(b) two pieces of identification of a type authorized under subsection (2.1), each of which establishes the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address.

Authorized types of identification(2.1) The Chief Electoral Officer may authorize types of identification for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b). For greater certainty, any document — other than a notice of confirmation of registration sent under section 95 or 102 — regardless of who issued the document, may be authorized.

(2.2) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b), a document issued by the Government of Canada that certifies that a person is registered as an In- dian under the Indian Act constitutes an autho- rized piece of identification.

Proof of residence(3.1) If the address contained in the piece or pieces of identification provided under subsection (2) does not prove the elector’s residence but is consistent with information related to the elector that appears on the list of electors, the elector’s residence is deemed to have been proven.

(3.2) Despite subsection (3.1), a deputy re- turning officer, poll clerk, candidate or candi- date’s representative who has reasonable doubts concerning the residence of an elector referred to in that subsection may request that the elector take the prescribed oath, in which case his or her residence is deemed to have been proven only if he or she takes that oath.

Examination of identification documents(3.3) A candidate or their representative may examine but not handle any piece of identification presented under this section.Voting(4) If the deputy returning officer is satisfied that an elector’s identity and residence have been proven in accordance with subsection (2), the elector’s name shall be crossed off the list and, subject to section 144, the elector shall be immediately allowed to vote.

(7) The Chief Electoral Officer shall publish each year, and within three days after the issue of a writ, in a manner that he or she considers appropriate, a notice setting out the types of identification that are authorized for the pur- pose of paragraph (2)(b). The first annual no- tice shall be published no later than six months after the coming into force of this subsection. 2000, c. 9, s. 143; 2007, c. 21, s. 21, c. 37, s. 1.

143 [Repealed, 2014 ...] 

144. A deputy returning officer, poll clerk, candidate or candidate’s representative who has reasonable doubts concerning whether a person intending to vote is qualified as an elector may request that the person take the prescribed oath, and the person shall not be allowed to vote un- less he or she takes that oath.

2000, c. 9, s. 144; 2007, c. 21, s. 21.

Proof of identity, etc., or oath not required144.1 Once an elector has been given a ballot, no person shall require the elector to prove his or her identity and residence in accordance with subsection 143(2).

145. [Repealed, 2007, c. 21, s. 21]146. If a name and address in the list ofelectors correspond so closely with the name and address of a person who demands a ballot as to suggest that it is intended to refer to that person, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes the prescribed oath.2000, c. 9, s. 146; 2007, c. 21, s. 22.

Person in whose name another has voted147. If a person asks for a ballot at a polling station after someone else has voted under that person’s name, the person shall not be allowed to vote unless he or she takes an oath in writing in the prescribed form. The form is to state the penalty that may be imposed under this Act on a person who is found guilty of requesting a second ballot at an election contrary to section 7 or of applying for a ballot in a name that is not his or her own contrary to paragraph 167(1)(a).Name crossed off list in error148. If an elector claims that his or her name has been crossed off in error from an official list of electors under subsection 176(2) or (3), the elector shall not be allowed to vote unless the returning officer verifies that the elector’s name was crossed off in error or the elector takes the oath referred to in section 147 in writing.

This is only slightly more readable than the tabled legislation currently before Parliament, but it does give an idea of the changes being made in this section of the laws related to the conduct of an election in Canada.

Perhaps the most troubling, and shocking, aspect of these amendments is 143(3.3) which reads as follows:

(3.3) A candidate or their representative may examine but not handle any piece of identification presented under this section.

This is unprecedented.  At no time in my recollection have the party scrutineers at polling stations ever had any specific right to inspect the ID provided by a voter.  In adding this particular clause, the very process of obtaining a ballot has just become subject to political interference.

Consider the following scenario.  The CPC in particular is known to have a database which it uses for tracking both supporters and non-supporters.  It contains as much  identifying information as they have been able to glean from various sources, including legal names, addresses and so on.  So, one could easily imagine a situation where the CPC gives a bunch of "scrutineers" a list of names, and they stand behind the returning officers desks and as various people come up, they check their list.  Voters who are on the "supporter" list get left alone, and voters who are unknown or even explicit non-supporters, are suddenly subject to direct inspection of every piece of ID put forward.

The effect is one where even if the party scrutineer doesn't actually stop an individual voter from voting, they create an atmosphere of intimidation within the polling station.  That will cause some voters to feel that their right to a secret ballot is being abrogated, and they may be reluctant to vote in subsequent elections.

One might ask why I pick out the CPC as likely to conduct such an activity?  Simple.  The CPC has already been shown to engage in a variety of voter suppression tactics, most recently the Robocalls carried out in 2011, but there are other more subtle forms of voter suppression that emerged in the 2008 and 2006 campaigns which have never been fully investigated.

The removal of the "Vouching System" for voters seems unnecessary and punitive for no apparently good reason - the analysis conducted after the 2011 election suggests strongly that the amount of voter fraud arising from the process of Vouching is next to nil.

The Neufeld report found “irregularities”, or administrative errors in 1.3 per cent of votes cast on election day -- meaning there were an average of 500 administrative errors per electoral district. The report made recommendations to Elections Canada for how to improve Canada’s voter services. 

But the curious thing about the report’s findings is that they are completely at odds with the Fair Elections Act.  

The Neufeld report makes no recommendations to axe or change vouching and Voter Information Cards. It does not attribute any administrative errors or “irregularities” made on Election Day to the vouching process itself either. In fact, in no place does the report advocate that vouching be scrapped. 

To combat voting day errors, Neufeld and his coauthors recommend Canada adopt an entirely new voting services model to address the challenges on Voting Day. As it’s clear that an administrative fix won’t solve everything, it recommends Elections Canada ensure that the 200,000 election officers recruited and trained each election receive better recruitment, screening, training and support to better do their jobs on Election Day.

... But a study of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases shows that actual ballot box fraud is infinitesimal -- it occurs just 0.0000068 per cent of the time, or almost never. 

The report crunched data from across the United States -- where there are 146 million registered voters -- and found just 10 cases of voter fraud.That fraud represents one out of about every 15 million prospective voters. 

The fact is that the vast majority of voter fraud cases are a result of human error, and voter ID laws will do nothing to change that. 

In short, the voter identification changes appear to be designed primarily to make it harder for Canadians to vote.  Where a lack of access to adequate identification documents doesn't stop them, the prospect of being subjected to partisan inspection every time one walks into the polling station will cause a great many people to not participate on the very real grounds of a fear of retaliation simply for not belonging to the dominant party.