Uh Oh. Mr. Harper Will Not Like This

There are many ways in which the 'Fair' Elections Act makes it more difficult for Canadians to exercise their voting rights; a group especially hard hit are aboriginals, not known for their support of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Previous federal elections have allowed a second person to vouch for the identity of a voter who lacks documents that contain an address. But last year’s controversial Fair Elections Act essentially ended the practice after the Harper government said it was open to abuse.

The act substitutes a new procedure — called “attestation” — which makes it more difficult and complicated for a second voter to declare that a prospective voter resides in a riding.

Critics of the Fair Elections Act warned the elimination of vouching would particularly hurt First Nations communities, where ID with addresses is hard to obtain.

In response, Elections Canada has budgeted up to $1 million to try to reduce the damage done to First nations people by this odious act.

How do they hope to accomplish this? Elections Canada

is planning a series of outreach projects, including through the Assembly of First Nations, to spread the message that people without ID at polling stations “don’t have to give up and go away”.

The contract with the AFN includes an effort to hire more indigenous people for election work, and a post-mortem after the vote, now scheduled for October.

While the efforts by Elections Canada are commendable, it faces an uphill battle, given the traditionally poor participation in elections by aboriginals, who bear an historic alienation from the democratic process.

Nonetheless, one can be certain that the Harper braintrust, which looks upon any opposition, however legitimate, with deep animus, is at this moment plotting ways to circumvent this modest effort by Elections Canada to engage First Nations people.

Setting The Record Straight

Is the oleaginous Pierre Poilivre really the best the Harper regime can do in its propaganda efforts?




h/t Press Progress

Less Than Meets The Eye

Were average citizens given to much political reflection, they would realize that from start to finish, the 'Fair' Elections Act has been almost exclusively about both discouraging people from voting and suppressing the vote of those who do not fit the Conservative Party's target 'audience.' Even in light of yesterday's announced amendments, that remains the case.

While the Act has provoked a flurry of steady, relentless, critical coverage, both in mainstream and social media, to view yesterday's ostensible retreat as a real victory is to misread the situation badly. Two aspects of the bill will, I think, support my thesis.

First, and less contentious in the public's mind, is the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer is still fettered when it comes to encouraging people to vote. To be sure, the amendment is less Draconian than the Harper regime originally sought:

In the original draft, Bill C-23 restricted the CEO to communicating only where, when and how to vote, raising concerns of an attempt to muzzle the independent agency.

Elections Canada advertising would still be limited to the nuts and bolts of the voting process, but the agency could continue to fund third-party education campaigns with elementary and secondary school students.

In other words, the CEO is still limited to encouraging people who can't vote (elementary and most high school students) to vote. While that may or may not bolster future civic participation, it does nothing to prompt those of voting age to attend the polls.

Secondly, the issue that received the bulk of media criticism, vouching for those without an ID with an address, continues to be a problem.

First, a slight digression. As you will recall, Pierre Poilivre et al. have consistently ruled out the use of voter information cards as an acceptable proof of address. The argument, proven repeatedly to be specious, was that it contributed to voter fraud in past elections.

But think about it for a moment. As a voter, you present valid identification, such as your birth certificate or health card, and then attempt to use a voter information card to establish your address. The card is rejected because you could be perpetrating a fraud. How? Well, even though you have proven who you are, you might have moved into another riding, but you might have also gone to your old address, either broken into your old mailbox or house to retrieve the card, with the express purpose of deceiving Elections Canada.

Sound ridiculous? Of course it does.

But not to Mr. Poilivre and the rest of the cabal.

Like a dog that is regularly beaten by its cruel owner but is ever so grateful when that master/mistress gives it a few crumbs from the table, we are supposed to be ever so thankful for the following:

“The government will not support amendments to allow voting without a piece of identity,” Poilievre said in a press conference on Parliament Hill.

“(But) if someone’s ID does not have an address on it, they will have to sign a written oath of residence. Another voter with fully proven ID will need to co-sign attesting to that voter’s address.”

In other words, the voter is infantilized because he or she, lacking proof, not of identity but of address, must be in the company of an 'adult' who has the proper accreditation. Perhaps someone can explain to me how that does not just continue, in a slightly diluted form, the process of voter suppression of the young, the elderly or the homeless who may not be able to secure the proper accompaniment to the polls.

Watch the following video, as the oleaginous Minister of Democratic Reform tap dances around the truth of this bill. Unfortunately, his interlocutor, Rosie Barton, seems more interested in playing 'gotcha' than uncovering the truth about these very weak and very disappointing amendments. Start at the 10-minute mark:

A Brief Programming Note

Since spring finally seems to be arriving in my place on the planet, it seems like a propitious time to take a day or two off from this blog and contemplate other matters. In the interim, I recommend the following for your perusal:

The Star's Thomas Walkom writes about democracy, voting and past democratic reform measures in his column today.

A series of thoughtful letters from Star readers provides an ample basis for some serious contemplation of climate change.

And finally, on the oligarchy that has essentially subverted supplanted democracy, the Mound of Sound recommends this interview with Thomas Krugman, who discusses a new book by French economist Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Pikey argues that modern capitalism has put the world "on the road not just to a highly unequal society, but to a society of an oligarchy—a society of inherited wealth."

See you shortly, and enjoy the long weekend.

Sometimes, Clicking Your Heels Does Not Send You To Kansas

This thoughtful letter explains why:

Re: Tory MP takes aim at elections watchdog, April 9

When it comes to fairness and objectivity, I have more faith in the former auditor general of Canada, Sheila Fraser, and in the current chief electoral officer, Marc Mayrand, than in Pierre Poilievre, the arrogant Conservative minister of state for democratic reform. Whenever I see or hear the minister denigrating an upstanding Canadian citizen who has had the courage to express a sincere concern about the government’s so-called Fair Elections Act, I can’t help imagining Poilievre clicking his heels together each time he meets with his authoritarian leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

We must not forget or forgive Harper for condoning and encouraging Poilievre’s outrageous partisan behaviour. The grassroots supporters of the Conservative party are allowing Harper to trample on the very fabric of our democracy. He is metaphorically walking over our flag with dirty boots. Harper has shed his professed Conservative-based principles and has shamelessly adopted a new doctrine: “Retain power at any cost.”

Lloyd Atkins, Vernon, B.C.

You Know Things Are Really Bad

...when even The Globe and Mail takes issue with its party of choice. In a blistering editorial entitled Harper Tories undermining democracy, to their own peril, the Globe attacks the 'Fair Elections Act and the attitude and deceit behind it, on a number of fronts. I hope you will take a few moments to read the entire piece. I will try to whet your appetite with the following excerpt:

...Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre this week told senators that Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has been so critical of the Fair Elections Act because “he wants more power, a bigger budget and less accountability.” Yes, that is surely the reason.

It cannot be because the bill’s change to voter-identification rules threatens to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Or that the bill introduces a campaign-spending loophole that eviscerates spending limits, and benefits the Conservative Party.

It could not be because the bill gives the winning party in each riding the power to name some of the officials who will oversee the next election.

It must not be the way the bill meddles with Elections Canada’s role in investigating or reporting on electoral irregularities.

It cannot be because, as a group of academics put it last month, the bill will “undermine the integrity of the Canadian electoral process, diminish the effectiveness of Elections Canada, reduce voting rights, expand the role of money in politics and foster partisan bias in election administration.”

No, the criticism must derive from the fact that the man charged with running fair and free elections is as partial, biased and self-interested as Mr. Poilievre.

The universal consensus of the bill, outside of the Conservative party and its supporters?

A Powerful Indictment

Thanks to The Salamader for bringing the following letter by Jacob Kearey-Moreland to my attention. Published yesterday in The Orillia Packet and Times, it is a powerful indictment of the 'Fair' Elections Act and the mentality behind it. For anyone wishing to drop him a line, his contact information appears at the end of the letter:


The Orwellian-named Fair Elections Act, while on the surface appearing to disenfranchise Canadian non-Conservative voters and, in other ways, advancing the interests of its authors, seems to have as its underlying driving force an attempt to undermine democracy itself.

Canadian democracy is under attack and on the ropes. With declining voter turnout, ever-increasing concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Senate scandal, numerous unresolved cases of electoral fraud, most notably misleading robocalls and exceeded campaign spending limits, Canadians have lost faith in our public institutions. Canadians do not trust politicians. They no longer think the government works for them, but rather it works for those with money and power. A fractured opposition and an archaic voting method, first past the post, resulted in 56% of the seats for a party with 39% of the vote and only 61% turnout.

How can a party that received only 25% support of eligible voters unilaterally pass new election laws against reasoned opposition and act as if it will increase participation and confidence in elections? As a voter, I am losing confidence.

The Fair Elections Act could be the knockout punch for Canadian democracy. It is my hope this will not be the end, but rather a new beginning. I believe ordinary Canadians, despite repeated blows, can muster the strength and courage to stand back up once more.

As it pertains to strengthening Canadian elections and bettering confidence in electoral outcomes, the Conservative party has done nothing to address legitimate and court-document cases of electoral fraud. Rather, it has created a straw man and is now throwing the baby out and leaving the bathwater.

Without open, public consultations, Simcoe North Conservative MP Bruce Stanton has already declared his unwavering support for this bill. What does he know that we don’t? How is he so sure this bill will increase confidence in electoral outcomes and spur voter participation? Evidence and experience suggest the opposite.

Will he defend his minister’s personal attacks and character assassinations on honest, hard-working public officials and dismiss such disrespect for parliamentary democracy as “just politics?” Or is Stanton of the opinion the fundamentals of Canadian democracy do not deserve to be widely debated, in public, across the nation, before such extensive and controversial changes are to be made? Surely, with more time and input, Canadians could improve this legislation beyond the ability of its partisan authors. What could move Stanton?

The toxicity eroding our democratic institutions runs deep — much deeper than the Fair Elections Act. The Conservative party, which positions itself as anti-elite, anti-expert, anti-science and anti-government, uses scientifically tested language and expertly crafted policy, borrowed from American Republican think-tanks and politicians, to manufacture support from “the average Canadian” when, in reality, among those who influence the party are the elites who control the country’s largest banks and oil companies — not so average. They don’t care for fair elections or democracy. They care for long-term power, more money and less accountability. Ironically, that is what Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre accused Elections Canada of wanting.

It is time for voters of all political stripes to speak up to protect our most fundamental freedom — the right to vote in fair elections — our soldiers famously fought and died for. Conservative voters, especially, have a choice of honour to make and an opportunity for genuine leadership. Do you want to defend our system or your party?

Jacob Kearey-Moreland is a local resident and gardener. He can be contacted at jacobkeareymoreland@gmail.com.

This Gift From Montreal Simon

I have to admit I was feeling rather discouraged the other day when I read this CBC report in which an EKOS Research poll found that only 27 percent of respondents were familiar with the 'Fair' Elections Act. Then I read Montreal Simon's post this morning and felt a little better.

Here is the short video he posted that beautifully and very succinctly shows why voting is so important. Enjoy and send it to whomever you think might benefit:

On Harper's Destructive Government

I am feeling somewhat uninspired this morning, so for now I simply offer two reasonably good missives from Globe and Mail readers on Mr. Harper's demonstrably destructive impact on our democracy:

Re Tories On The Attack As Fair Elections Act Faces Critics (April 10): Deceive, deny, demonize: Pierre Poilievre’s contemptuous 3D Harper-government attitude to any critic of this legislation is without compare – and utterly contemptible.

John Partridge, Lakefield, Ont.

.........

Re New Book Describes Harper As Controlling, ‘Nixonian’ Leader (April 10): Democracy depends upon a general endorsement of principles, backed up by rules and regulations.

When a government has abandoned these principles – or failed to understand them or never had them in the first place – and operates only according to the letter of the law, then that government has damaged our parliamentary democracy, perhaps irrevocably as it now controls the rules.

Doug James, Calgary

An Eloquent Denunciation Of Harper's Approach To Government

Watch as Thomas Mulcair denounces quite calmly, incisively and eloquently the myriad problems both of the Fair Elections Act and the entire diseased approach to governance embraced by the Harper regime.

Justin Trudeau also offers his view.

More Evidence Of The Devil

If the devil is indeed to be found in the detail, then Star letter-writer Geoffrey Kemp of Mississauga has done an exorcist's job of ferreting out the wily one.

Enjoy his well-considered thoughts on an aspect of the 'Fair' Elections Act that has gotten relatively little attention owing to the grave and justifiable concern being widely expressed over its voter-suppression implications. (The bolded parts are mine):

Stephen Harper’s need to hastily do an end run around democracy is doubtless caused by the dubious actions of those he chooses to surround himself with, other examples of his poor judgment and the declining Conservative poll numbers.

If passed unchanged, Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, will allow MPs to sit in the House while their election expenses are contested. It exposes and compounds a weakness in the Canada Elections Act, at times when a majority government may be elected with a very small plurality or the combined opposition have a small majority.

Currently, if an MP and the chief electoral officer disagree on an MP’s election expense return, the Canada Elections Act provides that the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the chief electoral officer ’s satisfaction, although the report is not due for several months after election day.

Bill C-23 allows the MP to continue sitting until a judge has ruled on the dispute and further states: “The removal of a democratically-elected MP reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters. No one should have the power to reverse a democratic election without first convincing a judge.” If an MP’s election expenses are found to be non-compliant with the election act, by definition they were not democratically elected and have deprived tens of thousands of voters their representation of choice.

Peter Penashue, Dean Del Mastro, Shelly Glover and James Bezan are four of Harper’s MPs who faced exclusion from the House having failed to comply with or refused to supply information required under the Canada Elections Act.

In close minority government situations, the ability of “false MPs” to sit in the House while their validity is being questioned could be the factor deciding who forms the government and becomes PM. One seat can make the difference. Remember how important Chuck Cadman’s legitimate single vote was perceived by Harper.

Instead of slowing down the review of a candidate’s election expenses, someone who is truly interested in removing the possibility of election fraud would be making changes to speed up the validation of those expenses. Bill C-23 should be withdrawn.

I Nominate Him For A Nobel Prize

The category? That's yet to be determined. Any suggestions?

Rick Mercer's Solution To Voter Apathy

Sure beats the 'Fair' Elections Act:

Well Worth The Read

I'm going to spend much of the day trying to finish off the bulk of my flooring project, so I shall merely offer some reading recommendations for your consideration:

In his Star column today, Tim Harper discusses the taint that will reside over every federal election henceforth if the 'Fair' Elections Act becomes law without significant amendments. He also discusses why former auditor-general Sheila Fraser's condemnation of the act is so significant.

Says Fraser:

“Elections are the base of our democracy and if we do not have truly a fair electoral process and one that can be managed well by a truly independent body, it really is an attack on our democracy and we should all be concerned about that’’.

As well, if you haven't yet done so, read Alison's latest post in
which, amongst others things, she reveals that Elections Canada has decided not to release its report on the Conservative robocall scandal until after the next election.

Finally, check out Kev's post in which he calls for a dramatic act of Parliamentary disobedience as a means of dealing with the Harperites' voter suppression act.

Slip Slidin' Away

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination, the more you're slip sliding away
- Paul Simon

I know, by his public efforts to appear reasonably normal, that Stephen Harper is a Beatles' fan. Whether he has ever listened to or crooned any of Paul Simon's songs is less certain. Yet I couldn't help but think of Simon this morning as I read Lawrence Martin's latest piece in The Globe and Mail.

Entitled The Harper machine is in disarray, Martin reflects on the many obstacles that have emerged to obstruct what I presume is Dear Leader's destination, not only to win the next election but to become Canada's long-serving prime minister. (Put aside for the moment that he seems to have blighted our political landscape for far too long already.)

Like an aging tiger, Harper seems to be losing some of his truculence. As Martin notes,

Few expected this. The bet would have been that the Prime Minister would have gone to the wall to protect Dimitri Soudas, as he has many other loyalists after acts of folly.

But just four months after having been appointed, the Conservative Party’s executive director is out the door. He joins a lengthening list. In recent months, Stephen Harper has also lost his chief of staff, his finance minister and a Supreme Court nominee, plus several senators as a result of the expenses scandal.

Dimitri Soudas' dismissal, suggests Martin, may mark an act of Harper deference to the rank and file who are becoming increasingly restive chafing under their leader's storied iron grip on all facets of the operation. Why? Matin cites several reasons:

-His party has been trailing the Liberals in the polls.

-He presided over a scandal he claimed to know little about, but should have known a lot about.

-Rebellious caucus types have confronted him, demanding some freedom of speech.

-Former finance minister Jim Flaherty contradicted him on income-splitting, a major policy plank.

One could certainly add to this list considerably, but perhaps the most egregious example of trouble has to be the almost universal repugnance with which his current favourite puppet, Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre, is being met over the misnamed Fair Elections Act. I won't be surprised if loyalist Pierre is soon invited to sit in the party ejection seat as well.

Martin points out that similar problems of resistance and bickering have beset past prime ministers as they approach the 10-year mark, including Mulroney, Chretien and Trudeau, at which point it becomes a situation of fight or flight.

However unlikely, let us hope that Stephen Harper chooses the latter option.

Rick Mercer - One Of Our True Patriots

I love this guy. Watch the following video to see why:

Be Very Careful

If you see this man, be aware of the danger he poses to Canada's democracy. Take all necessary precautions to avoid direct contact:



H/t Operation Maple via trapdinawrpool

About Those 39 Pieces of I.D. Pierre Poilivre Keeps Talking About

H/t Canadians Rallying To Unseat Stephen Harper

To hear Pierre Poilievre speak, one might think that any Canadian who claims that the 'Fair' Elections Act could very well disenfranchise up to 500,000 Canadians in the next election is intellectually challenged. The ubiquitous Harper weasel, both in the House and on television, assures us that all the experts, both domestically and internationally, are dead wrong in all of their criticisms, since the bill will allow 39 pieces of I.D.* to be used at the ballot box, thus rendering vouching and voter information cards quite redundant.

But are his claims of our collective ignorance/stupidity/hysteria valid?

The CBC's Laura Payton did an investigation of the issue, with some very interesting results.

If you look at the list of I.D at the end of this post, you will see the problem. As Peyton points out, Canadians don't just prove their identity to cast a ballot: they have to prove where they live too.

I have placed an asterisk beside those pieces that do provide an address. One of the key problems with many of those forms of identification is that one would have had to have gone to the trouble of requesting such proof well ahead of an election (eg. First Nations attestation of residence, or such attestation as issued by a soup kitchen, shelter, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility); a second problem would be remembering to have it with you when going to the polls. How many would bother to line up a second time after returning to their residence to retrieve the required but forgotten piece?

But most people have a driver's licence, right? Says Payton:

... while Elections Canada says 85 per cent of Canadians have a driver's licence — based on the numbers they get from provincial licensing offices — that penetration drops in urban areas like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, where better public transit systems mean fewer people require cars to get around.

What about things like insurance policies (which you are far less likely to have if you are a renter) or bank statements? Those are fine, says Peyton,

Unless, that is, the documents are delivered by email. [Don't forget we are always being preached to about the environmental virtues of paperless billing.] A printed version of emailed documents won't suffice. Instead, voters would have to go to the bank or the hydro or insurance company — or dig through their paper files at home — to find an original copy. And they'll have to know that before they head to the polling station to cast a ballot on the advance polling day or election day.

Curious as well, isn't it, that a voter information card, which contains one's address, isn't accepted as one of the two proofs required? Does the government believe dark conspiracies are afoot not only to steal the cards, but also people's other pieces of identity as well?

Given all of the criticisms levelled against this bill, criticisms that Poilievre has facilely dismissed as without merit, there is only one conclusion, in my view, to be drawn. Given those who are most likely to be excluded from easy access to the polls (aboriginals, the poor, the homeless, renters, the 'urban elite,' the young and the very old), people who are less likely to vote for the Conservatives, the Fair Elections Act is, unquestionably, legislation aimed solely at achieving voter suppression.

*Driver's licence
Ontario health card
Provincial/territorial ID card in some provinces/territories
Canadian passport
Certificate of Canadian citizenship (citizenship card)
Birth certificate
Certificate of Indian status (status card)
Social insurance number card
Old age security card
Student ID card
Liquor ID card
Hospital/medical clinic card
Credit/debit card
Employee card
Public transportation card
Library card
Canadian Forces ID card
Veterans Affairs Canada health card
Canadian Blood Services/Héma-Québec card
CNIB ID card
Firearm possession and acquisition licence or possession only licence
Fishing, trapping or hunting licence
Outdoors or wildlife card/licence
Hospital bracelet worn by residents of long-term care facilities
Parolee ID card
*Utility bill (telephone, TV, PUC, hydro, gas or water)
*Bank/credit card statement
*Vehicle ownership/insurance
*Correspondence issued by a school, college or university
*Statement of government benefits (employment insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support or child tax benefit)
*Attestation of residence issued by the responsible authority of a First Nations band or reserve
Government cheque or cheque stub
*Pension plan statement of benefits, contributions or participation
*Residential lease/mortgage statement
*Income/property tax assessment notice
*Insurance policy
*Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
*One of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility: attestation of residence, letter of stay, admission form or statement of benefits

A Simple Truth - UPDATED

But one, of course, that our political overlords have no interest in considering:

Re: Polls expert fears Bill C-23 imperils voters' rights, March 26

The response from Minister Pierre Poilievre’s office that “the Fair Elections Act simply requires voters to demonstrate who they are and where they live” shows a lack of understanding of the situation that many Canadians (by some estimates about 120,000) in remote areas, seniors homes and some students find themselves in. Many of these people simply cannot prove on paper where they live.

To disenfranchise them by eliminating the vouching alternative is patently unfair and is contrary to the democratic principle that all citizens have a right to vote. This clause, along with the one that restricts the right of the Chief Electoral Officer to encourage Canadians to vote, should be removed from the Bill.

Bill Wensley, Cobourg



H/t The ChronicleHerald

On Tory Intractability And Contempt

Today's blog entry is really a video one, based on the testimony yesterday of Harry Neufeld, the elections expert and former B.C. Chief Electoral Officer whose report is being consistently misrepresented by Pierre Poilievre in his zeal to suppress the vote through the misnamed 'Fair' Elections Act. Perhaps one of the most disturbing points to emerge is Neufeld's estimation that, with the elimination of both vouching and the use of voter information cards as acceptable identification at the ballot box, up to 500,000 Canadians will be unable to vote in the next election.

I am posting four videos: the first two are quite brief, and the other two are longer, taken from yesterday's Power and Politics. What ties them together, what emerges so plainly for all to see, is the absolute contempt with which Mr. Poilievre, the official face of Tory intractability and disdain, treats all expert opinion.

It is a face all Canadians should keep in mind when they go to the polls in 2015.

In this final segment, you will notice that even the usually unflappable Evan Solomon gets increasingly frustrated by Poilieve's refusal to even entertain the possibility that his bill is flawed, despite the array of experts saying exactly that: