To understand the bill, one must remember that in May 2013, and contrary to Conservative government denials, the Federal Court found that a “deliberate attempt at voter suppression” took place “across the country” during the 2011 general election that was targeted at non-Conservative Party supporters, and identified the Conservative Party’s CIMS database as the likely source of information for those efforts. The court also found that “the respondent MPs engaged in trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits.”
The judicial proceedings that gave rise to those findings were brought by 11 electors who, supported by the Council of Canadians, sought to annul the result of the election in six ridings across the country. During the 2011 election, those electors received calls falsely claiming to be made by or behalf of Elections Canada and misrepresenting the location of their polling stations. At the time, they assumed the calls were innocent mistakes. But 10 months later, when Marc Mayrand, Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, informed a parliamentary committee that he had received more than a thousand complaints of similar calls, it became apparent the calls were part of an organized effort to deprive Canadians of their democratic franchise.
Under current election law, there are two remedies for addressing voter fraud. The first is to prosecute anyone engaged in such activity. That is the job of the Commissioner of Canada Elections. The potentially more significant remedy is the right of individual electors to seek a court order annulling the result of an election when fraud occurs. But the risk an election could be annulled depends upon electors discovering the fraud in time to do something about it, and Bill C-23 would make it far less likely to occur.
This is because the Bill would prohibit the Chief Electoral Officer from blowing the whistle on voter fraud, as he did in March 2013. Section 18 of the Bill strips the Chief Electoral Officer of his right to use “the media or other means” to “provide the public … with information relating to Canada’s electoral process, the democratic right to vote and how to be a candidate.” The Chief Electoral Officer would be explicitly precluded from speaking of such matters.
By muzzling the Chief Electoral Officer, the government is seeking to keep key information about voter fraud from electors. This will make it far less likely that a government will have to contend with a timely judicial inquiry into voter fraud, thus obviating the need to again engage in “trench warfare” to prevent such a case from being heard in court.
As for the risk that perpetrators of voter fraud will be prosecuted by the Commissioner of Elections, the increased penalties in Bill C-23 have to be weighed against the risk of getting caught. To be sure, the Commissioner’s current record on that score is far from exemplary. Of the 200 ridings in which voter fraud is reported to have occurred during the May 2011 election, charges have been laid in respect of only one riding. But the likelihood of prosecution is further reduced under Bill C-23, which provides that the Commissioner of Elections is no longer to be appointed by Chief Electoral Officer, who is accountable to Parliament and not to the particular government in power. Instead, the Commissioner will be appointed by a civil servant and report to the Attorney General.
Moreover to ensure that no-one learns of any such investigation, the Bill precludes the Commissioner from revealing that any investigation is underway without the consent of all involved, including the person or political party under investigation.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, nothing in the Bill would hold a political party to account for the unauthorized use of its database by those who have access to it. That is precisely what the “Pierre Poutines” (yes, likely more than one) did in 2011. Until such accountability is established, voter fraud will likely remain a feature of the Canadian electoral process.
But don’t worry; you’ll probably never hear about it.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com
Author: STEVEN SHRYBMAN
No comments:
Post a Comment