XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ont.politics   
   XPost: sk.politics, man.politics   
   From: {~_~}@nyet.ca   
      
   This time it's Britain that is taking a look at what Harper's government   
   is up to with regards 'elections reforms'.  And they are not impressed.   
   ________________________________________   
      
   April 9, 2014 - Globe and Mail   
      
      
   U.K. expert warns of 'groundless' attacks in Fair Elections Act debate   
      
      
   The testimony from Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, who spoke to a Senate   
   committee Wednesday morning from Oxford, came after Democratic Reform   
   Minister Pierre Poilievre gave the same committee a scathing critique of   
   Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand the day before   
      
   The Conservative government's bitter tone in debate over its Fair   
   Elections Act has caught attention overseas – as a U.K. elections expert   
   urged Canadian parliamentarians to stick to facts, avoid "groundless"   
   personal attacks and consider revisions to the bill.   
      
   The testimony from Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, who spoke to a Senate   
   committee Wednesday morning from Oxford, came after Democratic Reform   
   Minister Pierre Poilievre gave the same committee a scathing critique of   
   Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand the day before, and after fellow   
   Conservatives similarly questioned the credibility or motive of experts   
   testifying about the bill.   
      
   Mr. Pinto-Duschinsky was more supportive than others who have testified,   
   saying for instance he supports Conservative efforts to prevent voter   
   fraud, but called for some revisions to be considered to ensure voters   
   aren't denied the right to cast a ballot. On several occasions, however,   
   he commented on the tone of the debate rather than the bill itself.   
      
   "What I would stress, though, is that the debate about the appropriate   
   role of Elections Canada should revolve around matters of institutional   
   structure rather than personalities," the veteran researcher and   
   elections expert said, later adding: "I do think it's important we don't   
   make groundless accusations against senior electoral administrators."   
      
   Testimony has continued at a frenzied pace this week on the Fair   
   Elections Act, or Bill C-23, which would substantially overhaul   
   electoral law in Canada. The government wants it passed by June. Critics   
   warn some of its proposals would disenfranchise voters, limit what   
   Elections Canada can say publicly and tilt the electoral playing field   
   in favour of the governing Conservative party. In testimony, experts   
   have overwhelmingly called for substantial changes to the bill.   
      
   The NDP and Liberals both firmly oppose the bill, with the former   
   filibustering its progress and the latter pledging to repeal the bill   
   when given the chance.   
      
   Government has said it would consider amendments, ‎ but has rejected   
   much of the testimony – instead moving to discredit witnesses such as   
   Mr. Mayrand, former auditor-general Sheila Fraser and others. They've   
   also questioned the statements of Harry Neufeld, the author of an   
   Elections Canada report that he says Mr. Poilievre has been selectively   
   quoting.   
      
   "I certainly wouldn't ignore what such a senior election administrator   
   as Mr. Neufeld has said," Mr. Pinto-Duschinsky, a senior consultant with   
   Policy Exchange, said to the Senate committee Wednesday morning.   
      
   Official Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair said Wednesday Mr. Poilievre   
   has gone too far in his remarks.   
      
   "It is a fundamental breakdown of a parliamentary institution to see a   
   sitting Minister of the Crown attack independent officers, present and   
   past, of parliament.  It's ad hominem, it's personal, it's unprovoked   
   and it's certainly undes‎erved‎," Mr. Mulcair said, later arguing Prime   
   Minister Stephen Harper is pushing the bill through to "front-load his   
   cheating for the next election."   
   (Many of the bill's provisions are expected by some observers to favour   
   the Conservatives, such as expanding partisan appointments at polling   
   stations, hiking donation limits, creating campaign spending loopholes   
   and stopping short of full rules to limit robocalls.)   
      
   Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau called the bill a "terrible piece of   
   legislation" on Wednesday, one he also said is designed to favour the   
   Tories. He pledged to repeal it if his party wins the next election and   
   he becomes prime minister. "The Conservatives' election bill is bad for   
   democracy. It is bad for Canada," Mr. Trudeau said Wednesday.   
      
   ‎Outside the Conservative caucus meeting Wednesday, Finance Minister Joe   
   Oliver played down questions about Mr. Poilievre. "This is not an issue   
   of personalities," he said.   
      
   In his Senate committee testimony Wednesday, Mr. Pinto-Duschinsky said   
   election officials are often blind to fraud before it's too late, and   
   backed the government's efforts to crack down – efforts led in large   
   part by the bill's proposal to eliminate vouching, where one elector can   
   attest to another's identity if the latter doesn't have sufficient ID.   
   The government has said it's too vulnerable to fraud.   
      
   However, Mr. Pinto-Duschinsky stressed a fraud crackdown doesn't have to   
   limit voter access, as observers say the elimination of vouching will   
   do. "We surely must do both," he said, of avoiding fraud but ensuring   
   voter access.   
      
   He called on officials to seek more consensus – a notion the Tories have   
   avoided, including by rejecting calls for cross-country hearings on the   
   bill. In particular, he said there are enough questions about whether   
   the government accepts enough forms of ID to vote that other forms   
   should be considered, and that further study is needed to see whether   
   the 120,000 people who used vouching to vote in 2011 will be   
   disenfranchised.   
      
   Further study of detail "is the answer, rather than going into more and   
   more... rhetoric and one side attacking the other," he said.   
   _______________________________   
      
   (What is the Fair Elections Act?1 Read The Globe and Mail's easy   
   explanation)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)