Something For Stephanie

In yesterday's post entitled The Warnings Are Everywhere, I wrote about how Canada is being critically scrutinized both domestically and internationally for the anti-democratic measures contained in the 'Fair' Elections Act. I drew heavily upon an open letter sent by an array of professors from countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and Ireland.

Stephanie left the following message:

I'd really like to read the open letter by international experts, but unfortunately, it's behind the Globe and Mail pay wall. I should not have to pay for the Globe to read this open letter, intended for me, a Canadian citizen. Any other links to it? Please?

Since I could not find any other source for the letter, and since Stephanie makes an excellent point that an open letter intended for Canadian citizens should not be restricted to those willing to go behind the Globe and Mail's paywall, I offer the letter here:

We, the undersigned, international scholars and political scientists, are concerned that Canada’s international reputation as one of the world’s guardians of democracy and human rights is threatened by passage of the proposed Fair Elections Act.

We believe that this Act would prove [to] be deeply damaging for electoral integrity within Canada, as well as providing an example which, if emulated elsewhere, may potentially harm international standards of electoral rights around the world.

In particular, the governing party in Canada has proposed a set of wide-ranging changes, which if enacted, would, we believe, 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.

The bill seeks to rewrite many major laws and regulations governing elections in Canada. These major changes would reduce electoral integrity, as follows:

Elections Canada: The proposed Act significantly diminishes the effectiveness of Elections Canada, a non-partisan agency, in the fair administration of elections and the investigation of electoral infractions by:

· Severely limiting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to communicate with the public, thereby preventing the CEO from encouraging voting and civic participation, and publishing research reports

· Removing the enforcement arm of the agency, the Commissioner of Elections, from Elections Canada, and placing it in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), a government department

· Prohibiting the Commissioner from communicating with the public about the details of any investigation

· Preventing any details about the Commissioner’s investigations from being included in the DPP’s annual report on the Commissioner’s activities – a report that the DPP provides to the Attorney General (AG), and which the AG forwards to Parliament

· Failing to provide the Commissioner with the power to compel witness testimony (a significant obstacle in a recent investigation of electoral fraud)

Right to Vote: The proposed Act diminishes the ability of citizens to vote in elections by:

· Prohibiting the use of vouching to establish a citizen’s eligibility to vote

· Prohibiting the use of Voter Information Cards to establish a citizen’s identity or residency

The prohibition against vouching is ostensibly to reduce voter fraud yet there is no evidence, as affirmed by the Neufeld Report on Compliance Review, that vouching results in voter fraud. These changes to the voter eligibility rules will disproportionately impact seniors, students, the economically disadvantaged, and First Nations citizens, leading to an estimated disenfranchisement of over 120,000 citizens.

Money in Politics: The proposed Act expands the role of money in elections by:

· Exempting “fundraising expenses” from the spending limits for political parties, thereby creating a potential loophole and weakening enforcement

· Failing to require political parties to provide supporting documentation for their expenses, even though the parties are reimbursed over $30 million after every election

· Increasing the caps on individual donations from $1200 to $1500 per calendar year

· Increasing the caps on candidates’ contributions to their own campaigns from $1200 to $5000 per election for candidates and $25,000 per election for leadership contestants

· Creating a gap between the allowable campaign contributions of ordinary citizens and the contributions of candidates to their own campaigns, and thus increasing the influence of personal wealth in elections

Partisan Bias: The proposed Act fosters partisan bias and politicization by:

· Enabling the winning political party to recommend names for poll supervisors, thereby politicizing the electoral process and introducing the possibility of partisan bias

· By exempting “fundraising expenses” (communications with electors who have previously donated over $20 to a party) from “campaign spending,” creating a bias in favour of parties with longer lists of donors above this threshold – currently, the governing party

The substance of the Fair Elections Act raises significant concerns with respect to the future of electoral integrity in Canada. The process by which the proposed Act is being rushed into law in Parliament has also sparked considerable concern. The governing political party has used its majority power to cut off debate and discussion in an effort to enact the bill as soon as possible. By contrast, the conventional approach to reforming the electoral apparatus in Canada has always involved widespread consultation with Elections Canada, the opposition parties and the citizens at large, as well as with the international community.

In conclusion, we, the undersigned, ask that the proposed legislation should be revised so that contests in Canada continue to meet the highest international standards of electoral integrity.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Shaun Bowler, University of California, Riverside, US

Professor Brian Costar, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia

Professor Ivor Crewe, University College, Oxford, UK

Professor Jorgen Elklit, Aarhus University, Denmark

Professor David Farrell, University College, Dublin, Ireland

Professor Andrew Geddis, University of Otago, New Zealand

Professor Lisa Hill, University of Adelaide, Australia

Professor Ronald Inglehart, University of Michigan, US

Professor Judith Kelley, Duke University, US

Professor Alexander Keyssar, Harvard University, US

Dr. Ron Levy, Australian National University, Australia

Professor Richard Matland, University of Illinois, US

Professor Dan Meagher, Deakin University, Australia

Dr. Jenni Newton-Farrelly, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia

Professor Pippa Norris, Harvard and Sydney Universities, US/Australia

Professor Graeme Orr, University of Queensland, Australia

Professor Andrew Reynolds, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, US

Professor Ken Sherrill, Hunter College, City University of New York, US

Professor Daniel Tokaji, The Ohio State University, US

TWO Judicial Setbacks In ONE Day!

I don't want to chortle; I really don't. Chortling bespeaks a certain pettiness and vindictiveness that I would like, in my more high-mined moments, to think I am above. But I am weak, and so today is a good day to indulge in some whole-hearted chortling.

First came the news this morning that Marc Nadon, the Harper cabal's selection to take one of the Supreme Court's Quebec seats, was rejected by that lofty body because he meets none of the qualifications to sit (a mere pesky detail, I suppose, to some I could name).

Also this morning, another judicial body, this one the Federal Court in British Columbia, granted an injunction against Health Canada's new law, slated to come into effect April 1, that would make it illegal for medical marijuana users to continue growing their own supply, forcing them to pay a much higher price for their medicine from a government-licensed private production facility.

No word yet on the Harper regime's reaction to the pot decision, but they are saying they are "genuinely surprised" at the Nadon rejection.

Just as I am genuinely delighted by two Harper humiliations in one day. [chortle, chortle]


Perhaps he will stay in the Ukraine?

The Warnings Are Everywhere

Canada's reputation continues to erode, both at home and internationally.

I recently wrote a post about Canadian law professors who penned an open letter pleading with the government not to proceed with the 'Fair' Elections Act in its present form because it will seriously undermine our democracy.

Now, beyond our borders, the same fears are being expressed, but also with a warning of the negative impact the act could have on new and emerging democracies.

As reported in The Globe and Mail, another open letter, this one signed by 19 professors from universities in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and Ireland, issues the following warning:

“We believe that this Act would prove [to] be deeply damaging for electoral integrity within Canada, as well as providing an example which, if emulated elsewhere, may potentially harm international standards of electoral rights”.

One of the signatories, Pippa Scott, a Harvard lecturer conducting a six-year electoral project, says the bill would weaken Elections Canada – which she typically cites as a premier agency internationally and warns that voter suppression through the elimination of vouching mirrors what is happening in her own country:

“If the U.S. and Canada both start restricting voters’ capacities to express their role, then I think other countries which are far less democratic will easily take their message … It’s a great excuse. They’ll say, if the leading countries in the world aren’t doing this, why should we?”

The letter dismisses the allegations uttered by Harper puppet Pierre Poilivre about widespread voter fraud, echoing others who have said that such allegations have almost no foundation.

As well, concerns are raised about the role money will play in the electoral process, given the changes that would exempt fundraising from campaign limits, not requiring parties to document their expenses and “increasing the influence of personal wealth” by allowing people to donate more to their own campaigns.

In addition, what the professors describe as "party bias" will undermine the electoral process by allowing parties to recommend poll supervisors, among other changes.

The warnings are everywhere. They demand to be heeded. Let us all hope that the long winter of Canadian apathy is coming to an end.

A Timely Reminder About Taxation

Responding to a column the other day by the Star's Thomas Walkom, letter-writer Bruna Nota of Toronto offers us some timely reminders:

Re: Tax a dirty word in these Thatcherite political times, March 15

Yes, most unfortunately, the culture has developed in Canada, fully supported by all big media to depict taxes as evil rather than as a necessary social contribution to the community and to future generations. As the inscription on the Washington Internal Revenue Services building says: “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.”

We need to correct the timidity of our elected representative and strengthen their resolve to do what is right. Taxes, now or in the future, are a necessity if we still value community. And they have to be progressive taxes paid by the people and entities who can most afford them. The alternative is not a pretty one.
When we do not pay taxes our infrastructure crumbles. Our research ability disappears. Our students are saddled with unbearable debts. Our universities are beholden to the dictates of corporations. More and more of our citizens are left bereft of housing, food, education, basic services. This is not a society worth living in. We need to have more articles decrying the present regressive state of affair.

In this context, I recommend the excellent book published by Canadians for Tax Fairness: The Great Revenue Robbery. It is a series of very thoughtful and insightful essays about how the public domain is diminished because taxes are been avoided.

Perhaps the Fram oil filter man put it best back in 1972 when he talked about the folly of pursing a false economy:

Harper's Palpable, Consistent Contempt

Yesterday, fellow-blogger LeDaro posted a video from last May when Harper invited reporters to a caucus meeting to hear his speech, then refused to answer questions about the Senate scandal engulfing his government. As the reporters shouted out their questions, they were drowned out by the deafening ovation rendered by the Prime Minister's trained seals, aka his caucus.

During the 2011 election, people will recall that reporters following Dear Leader on the campaign trail were limited to asking a total of five questions per day, in total.

A report in this morning's Star reveals that Harper shuffled his cabinet in secret yesterday. Significantly, the shuffle was not announced beforehand. Journalists who did go to Rideau Hall were kept outside.

Chris Waddell, director of the journalism and communication program at Carleton University, had this to say about the secrecy:

“They are public figures and their swearing-in should be a public event,” ... adding that there was no justification for keeping it under wraps.

“As you clamp down more and more on allowing media to attend things, you make things less and less available to the public and you substitute for that public relations materials rather than actual news content.

“A big part of the media’s job in holding people accountability [sic] is being present at events.”

And that is the biggest problem with the cabal's obsessive and paranoid hiding of the processes of government. In a democracy, the press is entrusted to be our eyes and ears, the conduits of information that ensure that we can have informed discussion and debate and make electoral choices accordingly.

So in essence, the egregious contempt the Harperites shows for the press, when you think about it, is very thinly-disguised and absolute disdain for all of us.

Hardly a revelation, of course; just a timely reminder of what contemptuous and contemptible rogues are now presiding over our collective fates.

Rick Mercer Wipes Up With Pierre Poilivre

Rick Mercer does his usual excellent job in putting the smug and arrogant in their places:

More From Star Readers

Whenever I need a morale boost, I look to the letters' section of The Toronto Star. There I find regular confirmation that progressive notions are far from dead in this country, despite the best efforts of the Harper regime:

Re: Underemployment reshapes Canada’s job market, Opinion March 14

During the 2008 recession, some of my well-employed friends smugly asked, “What recession?” They would probably say that the trends in today’s job market aren’t troubling at all; they indicate that we are finally realizing the “leisure society” promised log ago by improved production and technology. This view is delusional.

Last year, our society transitioned from well-paying full-time jobs (less than 20 per cent of all new jobs), to lower-paying and “precarious” part time jobs (almost 80 per cent of all new jobs). This is not merely troubling, but cause for concern, if not panic.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ “Seismic Shift” tells us that 125,000 more Ontarians are unemployed today than before the recession, that fully one-third of part-time workers are frustrated by their inability to find full-time jobs, and we know that many Canadians are forced to take on more than one part-time job — just to make ends meet.

Unless these part-time jobs are freelancing gigs or busking at subway stations, this kind of work is not indicative of a leisure society but, rather, of slavery. We are condemning hard-working citizens to a daily grind that leaves them very little time for family, rest and recreation. This is hardly “progress.”
The golden lining on this storm cloud is that it presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to implement a guaranteed annual income. Are political leaders listening?

Salvatore (Sal) Amenta, Stouffville

We can have full employment in bad times if we adapt the German system Kurzarbeit, the largest work-sharing program in the world. The program included 64,000 workplaces and 1.5 million workers at the peak of the recession in mid-2009.

The Economist magazine, the most read magazine by CEOs and politicians, praises the German system, in which employers reduce hours rather than cut jobs in recessions: “Germany’s gross domestic product fell by 4 per cent in the two years to the end of 2009, twice as much as in America. Yet its employment rose by 0.7 per cent while America’s plunged by 5.5 per cent.”

Joseph Polito, Toronto