XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ab.politics   
   XPost: ont.politics   
   From: ConsRCons@govt.cda   
      
   THE CANADIAN PRESS - Thursday, February 27, 2014   
      
      
   Canada’s casually partisan approach to election law reform: Walkom   
      
   People will accept a government as legitimate only if they think the   
   voting process is fair (and even then they might not).   
      
      
   Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a delegation to Ukraine to   
   promote democracy there, but at the same time is using his government's   
   majority to ram through contentious legislation called the "Fair   
   Elections Act," Thomas Walkom says.   
      
      
   Prime Minister Stephen Harper is keen to ensure a legitimate, democratic   
   order in Ukraine.   
      
   But his government is curiously casual about ramming through changes to   
   Canada’s election act that this country’s opposition parties claim are   
   illegitimate.   
      
   In the case of Ukraine, Canada’s Conservative government has moved so   
   quickly that it dispatched a team to meet the Eastern European country’s   
   new transitional government even before that government had been formed.   
      
   Ottawa did so after Ukraine’s parliament, under pressure from street   
   protestors, united to impeach and remove discredited president Viktor   
   Yanukovych.   
      
   Harper’s quick action is understandable. Ukraine is in a perilous   
   position. As the Star has reported, not all parts of the country accept   
   the new order in Kyiv. Anything that Canada can do to help Ukrainians   
   create a legitimate, broadly based government would be useful.   
      
   So it is puzzling that the Harper Conservatives are insisting on   
   election reforms here in Canada that many, particularly in the   
   opposition parties, say stack the deck.   
      
   Democracy works only when all involved figure the rules are fair.   
      
   In the case of Bill C-23, which the government calls the Fair Elections   
   Act, virtually the entire opposition say Harper is moving too precipitously.   
      
   A motion this week to hold cross-country hearings on the bill was backed   
   by the New Democrats, Liberals, Greens and at least one former Tory MP.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
      
   That motion was handily defeated by Harper’s Conservative majority. The   
   government has also used its majority to limit debate in the Commons on   
   Bill C-23.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
      
   Opposition misgivings centre around three issues: the government’s   
   desire to take enforcement of the election act away from chief electoral   
   officer Marc Mayrand ; its plan to tighten requirements for voter   
   eligibility; and its proposed loosening of some financial rules.   
      
   Indeed, the plan to shift enforcement to the Justice Department does   
   smack more of pique than policy.  Mayrand is the man who famously took   
   the Conservative Party to court for breaking election laws, and won.   
      
   The government argues that its proposed regime would be even tougher on   
   miscreants. The problem, however, is that it would have the top election   
   law enforcer working for the government of the day.   
      
   By contrast, the chief electoral officer works for Parliament. His role,   
   like that of the auditor general, is to stand above partisan politics.   
      
   Opposition MPs also claim that government plans to tighten voter   
   eligibility requirements are designed to suppress the vote. Critics are   
   particularly irked by clauses that would remove voter notification cards   
   mailed out by Elections Canada from the list of acceptable IDs and that   
   would end the practice whereby one voter is able to vouch for another’s   
   identity.   
      
   The government response is that there will still be 39 kinds of   
   identification that voters can use to cast ballots. That’s true,   
   although many of the 39, such as parolee identification cards, are not   
   widely held.   
      
   Still, it is odd to treat as acceptable a phone bill that arrives   
   through the post but not a mailed notification from Elections Canada.   
      
   The government may have a reason, or at least a reason better than the   
   one offered by Mississauga Tory MP Brad Butt (he twice claimed he had   
   personally seen individuals picking voter notification cards from the   
   trash to use fraudulently before, finally, admitting that both   
   statements were entirely untrue.)   
      
   If so, the government would be wise to slow down and explain itself.   
      
   Changing the rules around voting is always tricky business. The last   
   major overhaul in 2000 was bitterly opposed by Harper, then head of the   
   right-wing National Citizens’ Coalition and by the Communist Party.   
      
   The Communists won their case in court; Harper did not.   
      
   The then Liberal government used its majority to ram those 2000 reforms   
   through the Commons. That wasn’t smart then. It isn’t now.   
      
   People often accept governments they didn’t vote for.  But they do so   
   only if they view the process as legitimate.  Allowing the election law   
   itself to become a partisan issue is playing with fire.   
      
   Ukraine provides an extreme example of what can happen when a government   
   loses legitimacy.   
      
      
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
      
        “It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save   
   the environment.”    ― Ansel Adams   
      
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)