XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ab.politics   
   XPost: ont.politics   
   From: ConsRCons@govt.cda   
      
   They're trying to cover up the overspending they did in the last   
   election - and which Elections Canada is on their trail for - by making   
   a law which would retroactively exonerate their abuses and fraud.   
      
   This is going to be a biggee issue going into the next election.  It   
   paves the way for higher spending by the candidates and the corporations   
   that have always been behind many of the 'individual' donations.   
   __________________________________________________________   
   Monday, 02/17/2014   
      
   Opposition parties doubt they can change elections reform bill, Tories   
   ramming it through   
      
      
   Opposition MPs say the federal government’s steamrolling its massive   
   Fair Elections Act through Parliament without consensus from all   
   political parties and say they’re not sure how substantively the   
   sweeping bill can be amended.   
      
   “The tradition in the House with respect to significant changes to   
   electoral law doesn’t go that far [as requiring unanimity], but what it   
   does go as far as is having meaningful, advance involvement of at least   
   all recognized parties…to get the bill to a state where everyone in the   
   House is basically happy with it, to make it a consensus product,” said   
   NDP MP Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth, Ont.), his party’s democratic   
   reform critic and a member of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee   
   that is currently studying the Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23.   
      
   “That, I think, is needed and was never done. That is why I brought the   
   motion to bring the bill to committee after first reading, because that   
   is a mechanism whereby you can take a bill apart and put it back   
   together in a way that would reflect the consensus. You can’t do that in   
   committee after second reading,” he said.   
      
   Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre   
   (Nepean-Carleton, Ont.) introduced the Fair Elections Act on Feb. 4.   
   Just two days later, the government passed a time allocation motion and   
   the bill was passed at second reading and sent to the Procedure and   
   House Affairs Committee for study.   
      
   Parliamentary procedure set out in O’Brien and Bosc states that   
   “traditionally,” passing legislation through second reading “amounts to   
   approval by the House of the principle of the bill.”   
      
   “This effectively limits the scope of any amendments that may be made   
   during committee study and at report stage,” reads O’Brien and Bosc.   
      
   The Fair Elections Act contains a number of controversial provisions the   
   opposition parties and other critics have objected to, including moving   
   the commissioner of Canada Elections out of Elections Canada and into   
   the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Justice   
   Department, restricting what the chief electoral officer can communicate   
   to Canadians, and ending the practice of vouching at the polls.   
      
   The bill would also create new offences and toughen up existing ones,   
   and require robocall companies working for parties to be registered.   
      
   Opposition MPs have said the bill’s end to vouching will disenfranchise   
   thousands of voters, including First Nations communities, and that it’s   
   “neutering” the chief electoral officer and Elections Canada.   
      
   Mr. Scott said the NDP wants to see “dozens” of amendments made to the   
   bill and that there are already two to three dozen parts of the bill he   
   thinks are “badly written or problematic because they’re part of an   
   attack on our electoral system.”   
      
   But Mr. Scott said he doesn’t think there’s a chance substantive   
   amendments will be made.   
      
   “The principle of the bill is fixed by how it’s passed at second   
   reading. We’ll often use the word scope as well. And then we’re in the   
   hands of the legal advisers who advise the chair as to what amendments   
   are allowable or not allowable, and it tends to be the case that the   
   rulings are quite narrow. So attempts to seriously fix problems are   
   often ruled out of order and often the only way those kinds of   
   amendments can go forward in committee after second reading is if the   
   government agrees and it becomes effectively a government amendment,”   
   said Mr. Scott.   
      
   “I’m not saying there won’t be any amendment, but it will be a   
   strategic, token amendment to allow the government to say they were   
   flexible,” he said.   
      
   Liberal MP Scott Simms (Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls, Nfld.), his   
   party’s democratic reform critic, said he’s particularly concerned about   
   ending the vouching practice and also questioned how substantially the   
   bill can even be amended after second reading.   
      
   “Some subtle amendments can be made, but the Speaker still has the power   
   to overrule if they go beyond the principle and scope of the bill,” said   
   Mr. Simms.   
      
   Following Bill C-23’s introduction, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand   
   appeared on political talk shows to discuss his concerns with the bill,   
   which he said he reads as restricting him from speaking about democracy   
   in Canada, aside from “where and when to vote.”   
      
   “I’m not aware of any electoral bodies around the world who cannot talk   
   about democracy,” said Mr. Mayrand in an interview on CBC’s Power and   
   Politics on Feb. 8.   
      
   Mr. Mayrand said more than 100,000 people required vouching in order to   
   vote last election, and said they could be disenfranchised by these   
   changes.   
      
   He said he did have a meeting with Mr. Poilievre in the summer and   
   thought the minister “listened attentively,” but he said he wasn’t shown   
   a draft copy of the bill. Mr. Mayrand said in the past, Elections Canada   
   has even been involved in helping to draft legislation.   
      
   He also said there were “quite a few” positive changes in the bill.   
      
   However, Mr. Mayrand was reportedly much more candid about the bill at   
   an Elections Canada gathering earlier this month. As reported by the   
   Ottawa Citizen’s Glen McGregor, Mr. Mayrand said the bill is retaliation   
   against Elections Canada for past conflicts.   
      
   Conservatives have accused Mr. Mayrand of bias and of wearing a “team   
   jersey.”   
      
   NDP and Liberal MPs who spoke with The Hill Times said they think Bill   
   C-23 is about the Conservative government’s personal issues with   
   Elections Canada and is an attempt to hobble the agency.   
      
   The Conservative Party ran into conflict with Elections Canada even   
   before it was officially created, starting with a battle in 2003 over   
   whether the party could even form. Since then, the party and Elections   
   Canada have met in court a number of times, including over a 2004   
   attempt by then-MP Stephen Harper to do away with caps on political   
   advertising and over the 2006 in-and-out scandal.   
      
   In an interview with The Hill Times, Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)