In a democracy citizens have an equal voice in electing those who make the rules. Canada has a well-earned reputation for fairness in running elections and for the wisdom of our current legislation in ensuring that fairness. So, why has Democratic Reform Minister, Pierre Poilievre introduced questionable changes in a bill entitled “The Fair Elections Act”? Some of the proposed changes appear to threaten rather than enhance the fairness of our elections. And why is the Conservative majority ramming this bill through parliament by reducing the time to examine and discuss the huge 252 page document in committee to less than a week. Some have observed that Mr. Harper’s dislike of Elections Canada, the attempts by Conservatives to sway voters through illegal or questionable practices such as deceitful robo calls or transfer of donations from ridings to the central office, and the tendency of younger, elderly, or aboriginal voters to not support the Conservatives has something to do with the content of the misnamed “Fair Elections Act.”
As individual citizens we have a role to play in evaluating the proposed bill and using our voices to influence the decisions of the MP’s representing our riding and Parliament as a whole. We need to sort through the language Mr. Poilievre uses to understand what is really affected by the bill.
Mr. Poilevre states that prohibiting the use of vouching to the identity of another and discontinuing the use of voter identification cards will crack down on voter fraud. This change particularly affects aboriginal people living on reserves, university students, and elders living in senior’s residence who lack the kind of documentation required by the changes. Although 120,000 persons were vouched for in the 2011 election, there is no evidence to support Mr. Poilievre’s assertion of widespread voter fraud in this practice. However, we do know that the population who used vouching are less likely to vote for the Conservative party.
The proposed “Fair Elections Act” purports to strengthen enforcement of electoral law by separating the enforcement role from Elections Canada. Currently the chief electoral officer appoints and manages the commissioner of Canada Elections, a person who acts independently and reports to Parliament. This person is charged with enforcing the rules – and he has, much to the embarrassment of the Government. The new Act would have the commissioner appointed by the director of public prosecutions, who answers to the member of cabinet who is the attorney general. The new rules also prevent the commissioner of Canada elections from revealing that an investigation is being conducted – so we will not know if election fraud has been reported and is being investigated or not.
The proposed “Fair Elections Act” prohibits the chief electoral Officer from engaging in public education or democratic outreach to groups that are less likely to vote, i.e.,, the groups less likely to vote for the Conservatives. Mr. Poilievre uses false cause and effect logic in stating that public education programs have been ineffective and therefore advertising should be done by the Government.
There are other changes in the proposed new Act which are also of concern. Perhaps we all need to become more informed and act as good citizens in questioning or challenging this legislation.
Pat McKeon, CSJ