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: Part VI: The Theft Of Democracy - Muzzling The Chief Electoral Officer

Wading through C-23 is feeling more and more like trying to pick one's way through a minefield.  Every step, you half expect to find something that is going to go "click" ... followed by a very loud bang.

Today, I bring you what the Conservatives are doing to the ability of Elections Canada to evaluate what is happening in our elections and take steps to make things work better.  (Hint:  It isn't good for Canada)

At present, Section 18 of the Canada Elections Act reads as follows:

18. (1) The Chief Electoral Officer may im- plement public education and information pro- grams to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those per- sons and groups most likely to experience diffi- culties in exercising their democratic rights. 

(2) The Chief Electoral Officer may, using any media or other means that he or she consid- ers appropriate, provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information relating to Canada’s electoral process, the democratic right to vote and how to be a candidate. 

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer may estab- lish programs to disseminate information out- side Canada concerning how to vote under Part 11. 

18.1 The Chief Electoral Officer may carry out studies on voting, including studies respect- ing alternative voting means, and may devise and test an electronic voting process for future use in a general election or a by-election. Such a process may not be used for an official vote without the prior approval of the committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons that normally consider electoral matters.

The amendments to S18 in C-23 read as follows:

Stealing Democracy: Part IV - Marc Mayrand Responds

When it comes to reviewing Bill C-23, as much as I enjoy exploring the labyrinthine language of legalese, I am also interested in what the current head of Elections Canada has to say - after all he's spent the better part of the last decade in that space.

Pierre Poilievre, the minister of state for democratic reform, justified the move to strip many of Elections Canada's powers by saying "the referee should not be wearing a team jersey." 

But Marc Mayrand, the chief electoral officer, told reporters that if he's wearing a jersey, it only has black and white stripes. 

"What I note from this bill is no longer will the referee be on the ice," Mayrand told reporters after a committee hearing on another matter on Parliament Hill. 

"The referee won't be able to call an offside." 

Mayrand told reporters he is concerned the bill, the Fair Elections Act, prevents him from adequately communicating with Canadians, limits citizens' ability to vote and may hamper investigations into major election breaches. 

"I can't talk about anything other than where, when and how to vote," Mayrand said.

This is important.  When Marc Mayrand says this, it should be alarming.  He's basically pointing out that the act guts the ability of Elections Canada to investigate electoral cheating.

Minister Poilievre's quip about "wearing a team jersey" implies that Mr. Mayrand is somehow "partisan" in his conduct - an accusation that makes little or no sense.  But then again, it has been the CPC which has been repeatedly under investigation for violating various aspects of the existing legislation - from individual candidates breaking spending limit rules to the Robocalls scandal.  The Conservatives have tried to violate Canada's elections laws at every turn for years, and then they have complained loudly that they are being "picked on" for "partisan" reasons.

I think the truth is far, far bleaker than that.  The CPC under Stephen Harper is rewriting the rules now so that they can do whatever they wish and not be held accountable for it.   

Bill C-23: The Theft Of Democracy Part III

I continue my analysis of Bill C-23 in depth, largely out of the same horror and curiosity that goes with looking at a traffic accident.  Except in this case, it more to shed light upon the various little poison pills and land mines that The Harper Government is slipping into this 240 page monolith.

Today's topic is the appointment of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.  This would be the head of the body responsible for investigating electoral irregularities.

In the pre C-23 legislation, this is a fairly simple piece:

509. The Chief Electoral Officer shall ap- point a Commissioner of Canada Elections, whose duty is to ensure that this Act is com- plied with and enforced. 

C-23 replaces this simple declaration, with the following piece of baroque thinking:

509. (1) The Commissioner of Canada Elections shall be appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to hold office during good behaviour for a term of seven years and may be removed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for cause. 

No consultation(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions shall not consult the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to the appointment of the Commissioner. 

Ineligibility(3) A person is not eligible to be appointed as Commissioner if the person is or has been(a) a candidate;(b) an employee of a registered party or a person whose services have been engaged by the registered party to support its electoral or political financing activities;(c) a member of the staff referred to in any of paragraphs 4(2)(a) to (f) of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act or a person referred to in paragraph 4(2)(g) of that Act;(d) the Chief Electoral Officer, a member of his or her staff or a person whose services have been engaged under subsection 20(1); or(e) an election officer referred to in paragraph 22(1)(a) or (b). 

No re-appointment(4) A person who has served as Commissioner is not eligible for re-appointment to that office. 

Position within Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions509.1 (1) The position of Commissioner of Canada Elections is within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This is interesting in several dimensions that I find troubling.

First, disconnecting the Chief Electoral Officer entirely from the Commissioner's appointment seems to me one which blatantly neuters the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to influence the investigation of any electoral irregularities that they become aware of.  Further, it makes very little sense to move the position of the Commissioner under the auspices of the Director of Public Prosecutions.  While this is not guaranteed to fail, I suspect that the complexities of additional lines of communication that will be required are intended to impede the ability to investigate irregularities.

The list of exclusions is even more concerning.  Depending upon how one reads this, anyone who has ever run for public office, and anyone who worked on those campaigns is automatically excluded from being eligible for this position.  It seems to me that while the Conservatives will claim that this is intended to stop patronage appointments to "old political friends" from happening, what it really does is ensure that anyone who has been burned by electoral misdoing on the part of other parties doesn't get anywhere near a place where they could actually prosecute it.

Section 510 is all the more troubling:

Investigation by Commissioner510. (1) The Commissioner, on his or her own initiative or in response to a complaint, may conduct an investigation if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that an offence under this Act has been committed.Notice(2) As soon as feasible after beginning an investigation, the Commissioner shall give written notice of the investigation to the person whose conduct is being investigated. The 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. 

Independence(3) The Commissioner is to conduct the investigation independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

Confidentiality510.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), neither the Commissioner nor any person acting under his or her direction shall disclose any information relating to an investigation that comes to their knowledge in the exercise of their powers or the performance of their duties and functions under this Act, including information that reveals or from which may be inferred the name of the complainant, if any, the person whose conduct is being investigated or any witness. 

Disclosure authorized(2) The Commissioner may disclose or may authorize any person acting under his or her direction to disclose(a) with the consent of the person in question, the name of any of the following: the complainant, if any, the person whose conduct is being investigated and any witness;(b) information that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, is necessary to carry out an investigation;(c) when a matter is referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions under subsection 511(1), information that the Director of Public Prosecutions requires;(d) information that is required to be disclosed in the course of a prosecution for an offence under this Act;(e) information that is required to be disclosed under any other Act of Parliament; and(f) information that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, is necessary in order to enter into or renegotiate a compliance agreement.

This entire section is written in such a way as to guarantee that an investigation of electoral wrongdoing never sees the light of day as far as the public is concerned.  Even worse, it sets up whoever lodges a complaint to be subject to retaliation from the party that is being investigated.

Canadians have a right to be aware of investigations into electoral wrongdoing and the outcomes of those investigations.  With the way that this has been structured (and no doubt given the rules of the office of Public Prosecutions), there is no way that these investigations will see the light of day.  Of course, this suits Harper just fine, because it enables his MPs to break all the electoral rules they want, and unless something ends up on the public record (e.g. charges filed in a court), there is no way that the public will hear a peep about what is going on.

All this from the party that ran on a platform of being "more open and accountable" not so long ago.

Bill C-23: The Theft Of Canada's Democracy Part II

I have not by any means finished my analysis of this bill and what it is setting up.  However, a lot of other smart writers have been going over the bill too, and they have much to say which bears summarizing and considering.

First, over at the Toronto Star, Chantal Hébert has pointed out that the limitations the government is placing on Elections Canada in terms of its ability to inform the electorate of their right to vote and where they can vote fundamentally plays to Harper's desire to promote electoral apathy:

Under this bill Elections Canada would be allowed to tell voters where and when to exercise their franchise but forbidden to launch outreach campaigns to encourage them to actually vote. 

The government argues that such campaigns have no measurable impact on voter turnout. Yet it is a field that many provinces as well as comparable democracies such as Great Britain and Australia still deem worth exploring. The trend overall is to increase efforts to promote voting, not to force organizations that oversee elections to stand down. 

In the same spirit more than a few countries are looking to remove some of the practical constraints that are said to be keeping voters away by adopting alternative voting methods. One increasingly considered option is electronic voting. The bill shortens Elections Canada’s leash on that score.It would require that both houses of Parliament — and not just the committees that usually deal with election-related matters — give the green light to any pilot project that involved electronic voting. 

That means for instance that even if — after the 2015 election — a possible Liberal or a New Democrat government agreed that Elections Canada should road test electronic voting it could not do so without the permission of a Conservative Senate majority. 

Finally the bill tightens up voter identification rules — making it harder for a number of not usually Conservative-friendly constituencies to vote. The latter include younger voters. 

According to Elections Canada the 2011 turnout rate among voters aged 18 to 24 stood at a dismal 38.8 per cent. Across Canada some of the outreach campaigns that the bill would outlaw federally are specifically tailored to them. 

Given that each new cohort of voters is more wired than the previous one, an electronic voting system could have more impact on the voting pattern of the younger cohort that on their elders.Finally, younger people tend to move more often. As a result the deterrence effect of the more stringent ID requirements stands to be higher among the lower age group of voters.

This is a damning indictment of the breadth of this legislation.  If it were just Ms. Hébert saying it, you could be excused for assuming that it was the Toronto Star's natural dislike of the CPC and Mr. Harper speaking.  Fortunately, it isn't.

I'm not saying that all of the act is bad news, but rather that there are key features of the bill which are designed to stack the deck in favour of the CPC.  Yes, electoral reform has been needed for some time, but sticking escape hatch clauses in the bill that exempt parties from decisions of the Chief Electoral Officer, taking pages out of the "Voter ID" laws in the states which are used to deny many people the right to vote and other pieces of the equation which clearly limit the ability for the electoral oversight bodies are sufficiently despicable that they call into question the overall balance of the bill as a whole.

Perhaps above all else, the other clear sign of the Harper Government's motives in tabling this bill is that they have just announced that they are going to limit debate on the massive bill.