Con Senators hoisted by their own petards

... in which Conservative Senators harangue Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand for answers that he is no longer able to deliver because the Con's Fair Elections Act removed Elections Canada's Commissioner from Elections Canada and placed him under the aegis of the Public Prosecutors Office where Mayrand is not privy to its investigations.

Elections Canada CEO Mayrand had barely begun giving the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs his report on the last federal election when the Chair interrupts and asks him to wrap it up because they have many questions - questions propelled, it is explained, by the particular interest of Senator Linda Frum. Oh goodie.

Con Senator Daniel Lang: "Registered third parties. Can you confirm that registered political parties are not allowed to accept money from foreign donors over the course of an election?"

Mayrand : You have to be a Canadian citizen.

Lang : We have now seen that third parties can do much more than political parties, such as raising money from foreign interests in the U.S. and elsewhere to influence public policy and elections in Canada. This past election, registered third parties like Dogwood Initiative and LeadNow have publicly admitted that they receive foreign moneys, run campaigns, even published pushpolls under your interpretation of the act as I understand it. All they can't do is advertise over a set amount during the writ. Can you tell me was it the intention of the Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court to allow third parties to actively campaign prior to and during elections?

Mayrand : Within certain limits and spending caps, third parties, provided they register if they spend more than $500, are allowed to do advertising during the campaign. That is specifically provided for in the legislation. 

Lang : So a registered third party during a political campaign, except for a restricted area, can accept foreign money to help run and be involved in a campaign?

Mayrand : They can.

Lang : It has come to my attention that there are a number of these third party registered organizations, who it would appear have been willfully circumventing the Elections Act or acting as a party to circumvent the Act. Can you tell us up to now how many complaints you have received from Canadians, or have you received complaints from Canadians or from political parties related to third party groups and third party advertising, and if so, how many are you actually investigating?

Mayrand : Complaints would have been directed to the Commissioner of Canada's Elections who is tasked with assuring compliance with those provisions, so I would not be aware of the type of complaints the Commissioner has received. 

Lang : So this wouldn't be discussed with you? Because it seems rather strange it wouldn't be. 

Mayrand : With the separation of the offices, we can no longer have those type of discussions so I am not aware of what type of feedback, comments, or complaints that the Commissioner would have received in this matter. 

Lang : What I don't understand is why you wouldn't be aware this type of thing was occurring. In your report you talk about investigations, you talk about contraventions of the Elections Act ...

Mayrand : These are files that were referred during the election by my office, matters brought to my attention mostly by Canadians during the election - allegations that could potentially be an offence - and in that case I can refer the matter to the Commissioner. But I have no sense what the Commissioner or how he will handle those files. He will handle them according to his own protocols, and I am not aware of complaints that are directly addressed to the Commissioner.

Lang : So when are you made aware?

Mayrand : Only if Canadians bring something to my attention, and if it actually raises a matter of potential offence to the Act, then I will refer it to the Commissioner. It's not a two-way communication process. 

Lang : So for the record you have no knowledge of what I just asked.

Mayrand : Not with respect to what is the Commissioner's.



I imagine that Senator Lang had forgotten all about how their party's 2006 Accountability Act removed Elections Canada's power to compel testimony and documents from witnesses, legislation which I'm guessing would be useful if, say, EC wanted to investigate the alleged registered third party election violations that have Senators Lang and Frum so up in arms. 

The senators also seem to have forgotten that, under the pretence of combatting non-existent voter fraud by electors, the Con's Fair Elections Act moved Elections top cop the Commissioner out of Elections Canada and into the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, so Mayrand isn't privy to its investigations and consequently can't answer or act on the Senators' questions.

Well played, guys.  

And so it went for an hour and forty minutes with the Conservative Senators led by Linda Frum and Daniel Lang badgering Mayrand for answers and opinions about LeadNow and Dogwood Institute expenses, as well as their funding received outside the writ period and therefore outside his jurisdiction. 

Senator Frum was particularly exercised about "an organization in the US that is against pipelines" providing funding to third parties in Canada to hold rallies and music concerts and tell people not to vote for Harper.  

She then brought up Harper v. Canada, the 2004 Supreme Court challenge launched by Stephen Harper as head of the National Citizens Coalition. He sought to strike down Canada Elections Act's legal spending limits on third party advertising during elections. Harper lost that case and Canada was spared much of what became Citizens United five years later in the US. 

I'm not sure in Senator Frum's party shoes that I would have brought that one up.


This week the Liberals repealed much of the Fair Elections Act but media reports that it is dead are somewhat exaggerated. The Liberals have yet to return to Elections Canada either their former independence or their investigative powers taken away under Harper. 

And finally, several Conservative senators pressed Mayrand to agree that given the 2015 Federal Election had the highest voter turnout in years, that it must mean the Fair Elections Act had done its job. 

Words fail me ...
.

Electoral Reform for Dummies - that would be us.

Well that was then. 
Today some sixteen months later, having attended exactly zero electoral reform committee road meetings or community-based townhalls these past few weeks, our legacy media is jointly suggesting Trudeau throw in the towel.

Susan Delacourt : Time for Trudeau to cut his losses on electoral reform
"Mayrand just gave the Liberals a face-saving excuse. They should take it."

Ms Delacourt manages to interpret Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand's caution that :

any new electoral system should enjoy broad support beyond a simple majority of MPs (Liberal MPs, in this case) in the House of Commons.

“I believe that changes to the Elections Act should reflect a broad consensus, that’s for sure. And I believe that a single party, whatever the majority of that party is, should not be entitled to change the act unilaterally,” Mayrand said.

into an 'out' for Trudeau, as if somehow the NDP, Bloc, and Elizabeth May, not to mention the wildly cheering Canadian public who voted for reform above, do not count. 

Having hung this on something Mayrand didn't say, she goes on to speculate about "what Mayrand didn’t say (but could have)" and it goes downhill from there, although I give her points for not mentioning a referendum until several paras in - perhaps because Mayrand says it's unnecessary. 

"I don’t think electoral reform is a top-of-mind issue for Canadians," she says, apparently oblivious to the irony that, aside from Kady O'Malley, a media boycott might be having some bearing on that.

Toronto Star : Mayrand is right – give the people a voice on election reform: Editorial

The Star editorial board first plumps for a national referendum but settles for kicking reform down the road aways:

"Trudeau’s best move would be put election reform to a national vote and let Canadians chose the system they want, even if it means breaking a promise to do away with first-past-the-post during his first term in office."

Ditto the Ottawa Citizen : It's more important to do electoral reform right than to do it quickly

"First, the Liberals need to break the promise that 2015 will be the last first-past-the-post election. Second, they must replace that promise with a new one to pass enabling legislation for a voting system change prior to the 2019 election, but give up on the idea of implementation by that date."

So did you all get the same phone call from Butts?

Who have I missed here? The Sun papers are sticking with their slogan No Referendum, No Reform.  Oh, and the Globe and Mail - nothing from them. I guess their entire interest in electoral reform was exhausted in their Minister Monsef birther scoop.

Not really much use to us alive, are you, legacy media?


The truth is though there is a problem with the ERRE committee. 
Electoral reform advocates and activists remain resolutely positive and, in the spirit of the multi-party nature of the committee, open to whatever form of proportional representation is leading despite individual preferences for one system or another.
But underneath that there is concern.

Despite a mandate to come to a consensus about implementing a new electoral system, at least three of the four Liberals on the committee appear unconvinced electoral reform is even necessary and one is still making up his mind about a referendum. They've had 36 meetings and over a hundred witnesses, yet still take turns repeating bs rightwing Keep It Simple talking points about ballots the size of bedsheets and how complicated it would be for voters to rank several candidates/parties on a ballot instead of just one. 

Committee Liberals also complain that the members of the public who show up to public ERRE meetings are biased in favour of electoral reform. As if people unconcerned about being represented in government are going to make a special trip in to say 'I don't care about this'.

Last word goes to Conservative MP and ERRE member Gérard Deltell, speaking on electoral reform at the Quebec National Assembly on Sept. 27, 2011:

"We have almost 30 months before the next election. We have time to do what all the parties have always urged, that is, a proportional system.'

.

4th Electoral Reform Committee - Mayrand

Testimony of Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand July 7  
on "Viable alternative voting systems to replace First Past the Post and examination of mandatory and online voting" 

Shorter : A one-off referendum would cost $300M, Mayrand not worried about getting election system changes and/or possible referendum done in time for 2019 election if May 2017 deadline, as promised, is his starter date. 
Mayrand, it should be mentioned, is retiring in December so it won't be him dealing with it.

Alternating CPC & Lib MP questions: Referendum, online voting, referendum, online voting, referendum.
The dominance of the referendum question from the CPCs continues as expected, but the emphasis on online voting from the Libs is a surprise, given Mayrand has already said it won't be an option for the 2019 election.

Longer, much much much longer :-) ...

As CEO, Mayrand's role is to administer Canada Elections Act and Referendum Act and implement readjustment of federal elections boundaries.
Next report on suggested legislated changes to be submitted to PROC in September.
"Very short timeline" to get changes in place for next election in 2019.
He will not be addressing pros and cons of various voting systems.
Government has committed to have legislation in place in May 2017 "which I am comfortable with"
Mayrand reiterated his remarks to PROC from April. Full statement here :

1)Some systems may require redistribution of electoral boundaries. Current legal framework does not allow for redistribution except after the decennial census - current boundaries are supposed to be in place till 2023 - and also does not allow for multi-member seats. A change in voting system requiring redistribution will require enabling legislation. Last redistribution exercise took 26 months.

2) Redistribution may make it difficult to get results published on election night.  Canadians expect quick results so electronic tabulation may be required at all polling places to continue this tradition.

3) Redistribution may impact political financing. 

4) Public education on new system and election officers will need prepping.

Online voting and mandatory voting.
Internet voting would remove barriers but Canadians must trust integrity and secrecy of the vote. Online voting will not be an option in 2019. 
23 countries have national mandatory voting. Sanctions or incentives? 

Two rounds of five minutes each for MPs to ask questions :

Lib John Aldag : Your role in public education?
Mayrand : Should start one year in advance of election. His current mandate under Fair Elections Act passed by Cons in 2014 restricts his public education role to only those under 18 years of age. 

So, Libs, how about it? Think you might roll back Fair Elections Act to let the CEO of Elections Canada explain the new system - whatever it is - to Canadians for a year before the 2019 election?

CPC Scott Reid : Can we get new legislation through both the House and the Senate by May 2017? At what point after that does new system become impossible to implement? What is the "drop dead rate"?
Mayrand : At least two years.
Reid : Still six months to prepare referendum? When does 6 months start?
Mayrand : Yes, six months. Starts when we can tell it's going to happen. Have started looking into referendum change.

NDP Boulerice : 26 months? Why don't people vote?
Mayrand : Yes. 40% are busy/not in riding, 45% not interested in politics, 8% cite administrative barriers.
Boulerice : Have any countries moved from another system to FPtP?
Mayrand : Not as far as I know.

Elizabeth May : Fair Elections Act/Bill C-23 restricts your actions. Could you provide committee with a list of what you'll need for a new system? And explain delayed election results.
Mayrand : In Australia, preferential ballots takes time to compute election results 
May : How much would a one-off referendum cost?
Mayrand : Estimate is $300M
May : Would regrouping existing ridings into one be a simpler exercise?
Mayrand : Will require public consultation but won't cut down the time required much.

Lib Ruby Sahota : How can we make voting more accessible?
Mayrand : Online voting - 3.5M electors have some form of disability. Will recommend party reimbursement for making voting more accessible.
Sahota : If banking and million dollar deals are done online, why not voting?

CPC Gerard Deltell : Could preferential voting system as recommended by Stephane Dion be made understandable to Canadians in 26 months?  ... wait for it ... wait for it ... What steps does a referendum entail?
Mayrand : Entails drafting the question, examining materials since 1992 [last referendum], training manuals for 255,000 election workers, adapting current systems, contracts. 
DelTell : Won't that take more than 6 months?
Mayrand : 6 months minimum.

Lib Sherry Romanado : Tech for improving voting. Humans make mistakes counting ballots. Online voting - could do it like tax returns but with option of polling stations..
Mayrand : Online voting will not likely replace paper ballots.  25% of voters prefer not to vote on polling day and that number is increasing.
Romanado : Why not leave that up to Canadians? I can order pizza online. On the day of the vote, it may be raining, I might be busy. Online voting gives me an option.
Mayrand : Security is an issue. Confidentiality. Secrecy. Reliability. Integrity. Risk of online services is to provider. Also we lack a universal authentification system in Canada.

NDP Chris Christopherson : Mandatory and online voting discussion distracts from discussing electoral reform. Send to PROC.

CPC Blake Richards : Referendum

Lib Matt deCourcey: Mandatory and online voting part of this committee's mandate. Possibility of augmenting EC role re the bringing in the young.
Mayrand : We could register students before they are 18 for when they turn of age. Civic education means more likely to vote.

CPC Scott Reid : Government is trying to run out the clock so there will not be time for both a REFERENDUM and time to implement a new system. Minister Maryam Monsef refuses to either endorse or refuse a REFERENDUM while refusing to do what is necessary to allow a REFERENDUM. How to stop the REFERENDUM deadline from going by silently in the 6 months plus 26 months scenario?

NDP David Christopherson: Legally a referendum cannot be held at the same time as an election. 
Mayrand : Correct.
Christopherson : Must be stand-alone. You need marching orders by May 2017 to meet deadline, so if referendum was May 1st, that puts us around Dec 2016 this year to give you time enough. So committee must give you a total package by Dec 16 to trigger a referendum that still gives you time of 27 months to implement reform.
Mayrand: Can hold referendum under current legislation. Expecting your report in December. 

Bloc Theriault : [I never know what the hell he's on about .... oh, wait ... ] REFERENDUM and we should take our time to do this right.

May : Re online voting, there's a social cohesion benefit to actually gathering to vote.

May reads twitter question from David McLaughlin, former chief of staff to Jim Flaherty: If the Referendum Act was changed to allow a referendum to be held alongside a federal election, how much would it cost then? 

Mayrand : Only “marginally” more expensive.

May reads another Twitter question : Can all referendum ads be subject to fact-checking or fines? 

Mayrand : Not his responsibility - public policy matter.

May : If committee decision is MMP, how about returning to 2011 boundaries - go back to 308 ridings and add 30 seats for prop rep? 

Mayrand says interesting but would have to think about it.

Lib Sherry Romanado: Online voting. Outreach for seniors and students and homebound.

As EC CEO you aren't allowed to educate people over 18 but what can we 338 MPs do?

Mayrand : Aside from mending the legislation? 

Yes, once again, how about it Libs? How about allowing Elections Canada to do voter outreach and education again?

CPC Gerard Deltell : Will potential disputes over new electoral boundaries slow things up?

Mayrand : Independent commissions decide boundaries, not EC.

Deltell : So you are "a hostage" of these commissions. We should take our time to do this right.

Lib Ruby Sahota : Can you educate new Canadians about our electoral process?

Mayrand : We publish info in 35 languages. We try to recruit EC personnel that reflects diversity of riding. First generation Canadians have lower turnout but it picks up with next generation.

Sahota : What are pitfalls of different systems, like taking too long to count ballots?

Mayrand : Most people see elections as marking a ballot, not understanding the system. Changing from a simple system to something more - you should not underestimate the level of educating people required to even start a discussion.

NDP Boulerice : Is increasing the vote part of your mission?

Mayrand : "It has been clearly laid out it wasn't Elections Canada's role to do so."

Boulerice : Scottish model - 2/3 elected by FPtP; remaining third appointed by list. Urban ridings could be merged; single ridings on large land masses. 

Mayrand : Difficult to compare Scotland with Canada because of size of Canada.

Boulerice : How can we increase % of women and minorities? A list system could have rules mandating 50% of women.

CPC Blake Richards : Timelines for referendum and changes to the system - December report will start it? When is the "drop dead rate" for the government calling a referendum plus time for resdistribution?

Mayrand : Dec. 1st is date of report from this committee and next May is date for legislation. If by next spring there is nothing on the table, right there it tells me I won't see anything before the end of 2018. That means January 2019 and that means we're out of it. 

Lib John Aldag :  Last thoughts? 

Mayrand : Aging demographic. Important for Elections Canada to be able to provide service for homebound. I have exhausted what I'm able to do under current legislation. I need your support on changing legislation to prevent poll line-ups. 

Aldag : Aboriginal engagement?

Mayrand : Progressively closing the gap with the rest of the population but great disparities in participation across the country.

Aldag :  What is #1 Canadian challenge or attribute to designing a system?

Mayrand : Canadians have an extremely high level of trust in their elections system. Once you lose it, it's very difficult to regain. Be extremely careful in doing anything that may impact the trust of Canadians.

ERRE meeting #4

.

Marc Mayrand on Election Reform and Referendum

Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand at PROC (Procedures Committee), excerpted :

"With a majority government in place, as well as a fixed election date of October 21, 2019, there is an opportunity now to bring the electoral process, currently anchored in the 19th century, in line with contemporary Canadian expectations."

On holding a referendum on choosing a new voting system as advocated by the Cons :

"The Referendum Act is outdated. It has not been changed since 1992, which was the last time we had a national referendum. In that regard, it is very much out of sync with the Elections Act, particularly around political financing. For example, unions and corporations could contribute to referendum committees. I think that may come as a shock. There is no limit on contributions by any entities. Again, that may come as a shock, but the legislation still stands."

"Six months minimum to set up a national referendum." 

On amending the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act for STV or MMP or ...

"The bare minimum for a standard redistribution is 10 months.There are another seven months after that for implementing. You need to redesign all the maps across each riding and reorganize the poll divisions to reflect the new riding boundaries."

On time needed to revamp the whole system in time for the 2019 election :

"Legislation enacting the reform should be there at least 24 months before the election.Once you have the redistribution, you would need six to seven months to implement the new maps, the new districts, and then we would need to get ready for the election. We would need to prepare all the training. We would also need to build the systems that would support this new regime. We can assume that there would be a need for major public education." Also for parties, candidates, election officials.

On new Election Day technology :

"You have the electronic lists available at the polls. That means that someone who is showing up at the poll shows a voter ID card. The card is scanned, their name is struck out of the list immediately, and automatically it's valid across the country, so that person cannot show up somewhere else later during the day. As a result of that, they get their ballot. We could consider entering them into a tabulator, so, again, the results would be instant on election night."

On advance polls :

"This time around, 25% of all Canadian voters showed up at advance polls. Similarly, we had a 117% increase in voting by mail—in this day and age, yes.We estimate that serving an electorate at an advance poll takes roughly 10 to 15 minutes. If you have 10 people ahead of you, and you're the eleventh, imagine the time it takes. If you see three or four tables that are free, why can't you go to them? If I show up at any store I'll go to the checkout that is available. Why can I not do that?"

"The other thing that we need to look at is automating procedures. If you have voted at an advance poll, you know that electors, when they show up, have to prove their ID, etc. Then their name has to be searched in a big paper document, and they have to enter the name and address and they have to sign. There's no reason in this day and age that it still needs to happen this way. We would be looking at automation. There are good reasons that controls are in place: to ensure that the vote is reliable. However, I think there are big opportunities for automation and better service at the polls."

Mr Mayrand also referred to four other Elections Canada issues that in my opinion should be addressed before the next election.

On removal of voter identification card as a valid piece of identification in the 2015 Federal Election: 

"Voter ID was a barrier for 172,000 people who claimed that not being able to prove their ID or address was an issue for them, and therefore they did not vote according to the Statscan Labour Force Survey"."There is no national ID card of any sort that meets the requirements of the Elections Act."

On voter education outreach :

"Our mandate now is restricted to non-voters, those who are under the voting age." 

"Elections Canada is, in fact, the only body in the world that I know of that cannot promote democracy within the country."

On expenses reimbursement to political parties after an election :

Approximately $60M goes back to our respective political parties—no receipts required. 

On the power to compel witnesses :

"The commissioner cannot compel witnesses.""The commissioner's office was moved from Elections Canada to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is reporting through the DPP and through the Attorney General. It's not an office of Parliament, so it doesn't report directly to Parliament."

Note : I took Mayrand's remarks on electoral reform and a potential referendum out of the order in which they were made and bumped them up to the top of the post. These quotes are responses made to questions from the MPs at PROC.

.

The Butt of Fair Elections Act fraud

Con MP Brad Butt, who sits on the PROC Committee reviewing the Cons new Fair Elections Act, alleged in the HoC on Feb 6 that he had personally witnessed evidence of vouching voter fraud in his riding.

Today as the G&M informs us :  
Conservative MP backtracks on claims he personally witnessed voter fraud
Or as Butt put it himself on Twitter this morning: "I misspoke during debate and corrected the record."

But he made that allegation in the House not once that day, as the G&M reports, but twice.
He had an hour to think over his first misspeak before he stood up and repeated it again.

You can watch him here on Hansard by clicking on "View the video" at the timestamp next to his name under "Explore by Members". Hansard does not give an exact translation of his remarks, so with the aid of their handy video option, I've corrected it in blue. 

Feb 6 2014 @16:19 : Brad Butt, Mississauga-Streetsville :

"Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about this vouching system again. I know the minister represents an urban city. I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. So one of the things that I have seen - On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, we often find that many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people coming in, picking up the voter cards, going back to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with a friends who then vouches for them with no ID.
Does the minister not believe this kind of thing will get cleaned up properly with this bill?"

Not content with making up this allegation once, he enlarges on it again an hour later @17:19

"I think my friend from York South-Weston will appreciate this because, just like the riding I represent, he has a lots of apartment buildings in his riding as well. I will relate to him something I have actually seen. Here's what I've seen. I've actually seen this on the ground. On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in those mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. And I have seen campaign workers follow up after that, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Now why are they doing that, Mr Speaker? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally. That is going to stop."

Other Con members of the Procedures and House Affairs Committee [6 Cons, 3 NDPers, and a Lib] reviewing the Fair Elections Act alongside Butt include Con Chair Joe Preston and Con MP Scott Reid, plus :

Con MP Ted Opitz, the most recent member of Perps for donating $9,000 to his nomination campaign and thereby being cited by Elections Canada for exceeding his allowed expenses by nearly $7,000. Opitz' campaign manager also allegedly shut down a poll and frightened away seniors trying to vote during the last federal election. - which he won by 26 votes. This same campaign manager was recruited by Nick Kouvalis of Campaign Research to work on Rob Ford's election campaign in 2010. 

Con MP Tom Lukiwski, whose riding was the occasion of deceptive push-poll robocalls he blamed on Steve's director of political operations, Jenni Byrne

Con MP Blake Richards - fined $14,400 by the CRTC for two anonymous robocall campaigns in 2012

Gosh, I wonder if any of these committee members are carrying a grudge about elections law.

Making up the minority voices on the PROC committee are Lib MP Liberal Kevin Lamoureux, and NDPers Craig Scott, Dave Christopherson, and Alexandra Latendresse.
.
Update : Arggghhh. 
Election act changes could muzzle report on probe into robocalls, lawyer warns

According to James Sprague, senior general counsel at Elections Canada until 2006 : 

"the bill tabled by the government earlier this month actually may prevent Marc Mayrand, the chief electoral officer, from reporting to Parliament on the results of an investigation into allegations of dirty calls across the country.

The new act would forbid the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Yves Cote — who is in charge of investigating election crime — from disclosing “any information relating to an investigation that comes to their knowledge in the exercise of their powers.”

Sprague says that means Canadians may never learn what investigators uncover about fraudulent and deceptive telephone calls in the past election.

...the act will prevent the commissioner from discussing investigations with Elections Canada, so Mayrand will not be able to report on the investigators’ work. Instead, the director of public prosecutions will include information about the commissioner’s work in an annual report to the justice minister, but, Sprague says “that report cannot set out the details of any investigation.”

Just read the whole thing, keeping in mind the makeup of the committee studying it.
.

The Fair Elections Action Plan

What problems are the Conservatives really trying to solve with bizarre Fair Elections Act?wrote Andrew Coyne in an excellent column two days ago.
I'd like to pillage that model and expand on it a bit.

Problem : Investigation into election fraud in 2011 Election 33 months ago being rushed along at dangerous breakneck speeds.

Fair Elections Act Solutions : 
1) Deny Elections Commissioner authority to compel documents and witness testimony (with individual authorizations from the courts)  - a power nonetheless already enjoyed by elections chiefs in most provinces : Yukon, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. 
Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand on CBC's The House yesterday :

"Many people refused to talk to the commissioner even if they were not suspects. I'm afraid to say this is happening more and more in files investigated by the commissioner."

2) The Del Mastro clause. Require Elections Canada to inform subjects they are being investigated while preventing EC from telling the public about it.


Problem : Public trust in fair elections in Canada at all time high.

Fair Elections Act solutions : 
1) Governing party rewrites election law while being investigating by Elections Canada for election fraud.
2) Don't consult with Chief Electoral Officer before tabling major overhaul of Elections Act.
3) Deny Elections Canada commissioner access to parties' and riding associations' financial documentation to support claims made on their financial returns. 
4) Forbid Elections Canada from communicating with public. Mayrand :

"Most reports and research will no longer be public - not only not available but probably won't be done at all. 

I can no longer speak about democracy in this country except where and when to vote. I am not aware of any other electoral bodies around the world who cannot talk about democracy."   

then cut off debate about the bill in the HoC, sending it to PROC with its 6 out of 10 Con committee members.

Problem :  Serially violate election law successfully but then lose court battles to election watchdog.

Solution : Neutralize watchdog by moving entire elections enforcement apparatus from current independent office answerable to Parliament to inside Peter MacKay's ministry.

Problem : Too many people vote - 61% in the last federal election - especially aboriginals, young people, old people, and poor people.

Solutions : 
1) Forbid Elections Canada from encouraging voting, including terminating the mock elections model currently being taught to 300,000 Canadian students.
2) Voter suppression. Kill off vouching *** - the provision allowing an elector to prove their residence in a riding by having someone they know in the riding who is registered to vote sign a legal document.  Marc Mayrand on CBC's The House again :

"Every Canadian has the right to vote. That's a universal franchise. Vouching is meant to assist people facing challenges. We estimate that in the last election a little over 100,000 electors required vouching before they could cast a ballot. What will happen to those electors in the next election?"

Neufeld Compliance Review, commissioned by Elections Canada :

"The audit estimated that “irregularities” occurred for 1.3 percent of all cases of Election Day voting during the 2011 federal election."

and of those irregularities, "0.4 percent of ballots had irregularities due to vouching - of which the vast majority were cases of misfiled paperwork, not misidentified voters."

Problem : Parties not spending enough time and money on elections 

Solutions : 

1) Bump allowable individual contribution limit up by 25% with yearly increases to follow.

2) Bump party spending limits directed at new members up by 5% ($22-million).

3) Permit parties to exclude from declaring as a campaign expenditure any communication with electors as long as it's done with an elector that has contributed before in the previous five years and that it includes a call for additional money.

Mayrand : "20 to 25% of total expenditure goes to GOTV"

Problem : Incumbents don't have enough advantage over new candidates.

Solution :  See Solution #3 above.

Problem : Not enough Pierre Poutine robocalls are being made during elections.

Solution : Ditto

Problem : Not allowed to campaign on Election Day 

Solution : Ditto

***On a personal note, I have often relied on vouching in order to vote in my riding, despite having voted in every election I have been in the country for since I came of age to do so. I have a voter ID card, a Canadian passport, a Canadian citizenship card, a BC health care card, and a deed to the house in my riding which has been my only residence for decades. None of these have my address on them, including, according to Elections Canada, the deed to my house because it lists a rural RR# address they no longer recognize. I pay all my bills online or through my credit union. 

Just get a driver's licence says the harried DRO every time. 

Why? says I. Driving a car is not a requirement of citizenship.

.

Council of Canadians Phone Your MP Against Unfair Elections Act campaign is today!

.

h/t Beijing York for Mayrand interview - highly recommended. 

.

Pierre Poilievre, Minister for Democratic Reform

Who really thinks Skippy's appointment to Democratic Reform is about democratic reform? Ha!

Poilievre's appointment is about a coming battle over election reform and robocalls. It's been sixteen months since the Cons promised to bring in a bill addressing Mayrand's proposed reforms to prevent a repeat of last election's robocon fiasco.  The Cons have yet to consult Mayrand on it and he's been making public noises about their obstruction of his election fraud investigation as well.
Meanwhile the 2014 spring deadline past which reforms can't be implemented in time for the next election approaches...

Skippy's new job will be to attack Mayrand.
.
Thursday July8th Update :
 Glen McGregor : Poilievre brings robocalls expertise to new job

2014 Update : You have to admit I called it.
.

RoboCon : Do you have a cat?

30 seconds of Red Dwarf nicely illustrates the Cons' 'evolving' versions of their no-we-didn't-ok-then-yes-alright-we-did shenanigans this week after they were cornered with evidence they were behind the RackNine push-poll robocalls to Saskatchewans to foment opposition to proposed new riding boundaries. 

Seems despite what Steve says about 75% public support for his version of "Saskatchewan values", submissions to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission up to that point "almost unanimously voiced opposition to the continued use of hybrid urban-rural districts in Saskatchewan" and would support five new urban ridings.
Urban ridings - you know, the kind that don't reliably vote Con.

Regina Con MP Tom Lukiwski immediately threw Steve's chief political operative Jenni Byrne under the bus for the robocalls -which was a bit of a surprise until you remember that in addition to being the Regina MP and deputy house leader, Lukiwski is also a member of PROC, the parliamentary committee ( 7 Cons, 4 NDP, and 1 Lib) which will take a run at the proposed redistricting report sometime next year.
Hence his attempt to distance himself and his committee from any accusations of complicity in the Con robocall shenanigans while simultaneously diverting Con Party heat away from himself for not being on top of the commission's preliminary report in the first place.

Alice Funke explains :

"To local Conservative Party activists in Saskatchewan it meant that party headquarters had dropped the ball on the pre-submission phase, and that from that point forward they would be fighting a rear-guard action. Fingers were pointed during a behind-closed-doors meeting for over an hour, with Ottawa bearing the brunt of the blame and resentment.
Party Operations Director Jenni Byrne is said to have demanded in return that she wanted to see 8,000 submissions in the public hearing phase against the ending of the rurban seat boundaries."

800 identical postcards attacking the urban seat boundaries were subsequently received by the committee.

Because despite our crappy first-past-the-post system, new urban ridings might not support a near-Con sweep in Saskatchewan like the one in the last federal election :
Cons :   256,004 votes     (13 seats)
NDP :   147,084 votes     (0 seats)
Liberals :   38,981 votes   (1 seat)

Alice has a theory about those covert robocalls :

"It might have been part one of a two-stage process, where you run a push-poll to plant the information, and then follow it up with a legitimate poll to “capture public opinion” on the basis of the information just planted. Anyways, if that was the plan it likely wouldn’t work now.`

Meanwhile, RackNine, hapless home of Pierre Poutine and the latest batch of robocalls in Saskatchewan, is continuing to help Elections Canada in their 650-day-and-counting investigation into election fraud and voter suppression, and when the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission finishes its report, it will be sent on to Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand for review and implementation.

Alice's very excellent post at Pundits' Guide is well worth a full read, Sixth Estate is also on it, and Saskboy got one of those recent RackNine robocalls.

So, Jenni Byrne ... do you have a cat?
.
( Friday : Edited twice for clarity)
.