In-and-out and veiled voting: It's an irony ouroborous

by kadyomalley on Monday, July 28, 2008 2:43pm - 0 Comments

At the risk of turning ITQ into Inside the Canada Elections Act, I should point out that the lack of a forcible deveiling provision is actually almost entirely thanks to the government’s anti-in and out investigation filibustering at Procedure and House Affairs.

Conservatives on the committee spent months stonewalling an opposition motion to look into the party’s advertising expenses during the last election, which eventually resulted in the committee itself lapsing into a procedural coma. It hasn’t held a meeting since last spring. In fact, at the moment, it doesn’t even have a chair, which is why Bill C-6 (visual identification of voters) – next on the legislative to-do list – has been stuck in a parliamentary oubliette since last November.

For the record, both the NDP and the Liberals argued against the bill during first reading debate last fall, although it will still pass easily with the support of the Bloc Quebecois. Still, at least the other two opposition parties seem to have learned something from the veiled voting debacle.

UPDATE: In writing about C-6 at the time it was introduced, Colleague Selley, macleans.ca’s resident veiledvotingologist, pointed out that actually, the bill once again fails to address the ostensible problem (which, by the way, would be voter fraud, not ‘voting while female and Muslim’): The rules still allow the use of two pieces of non-photo identification, provided that the voter also shows one’s face, thus proving that one is a human, but not the human identified by the documents.

Bookmark and Share
  • anon

    “At the risk of turning ITQ into Inside the Canada Elections Act…”

    Too late.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Just one more post on this stuff today, I promise. Cross my heart, all that stuff.

  • in the know

    The Chief Electoral officer has given some Lieberals until the end of next year to pay their debts.
    Kady, I expected you to be the first person on this story!
    Shame…

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Honestly, I didn’t realize that anyone would see this as that big a story – he accepted debt paydown plans for most of the leadership candidates, and is still reviewing Dion’s submission. Other than providing fodder for members’ statements, I never really understood why the Conservatives got so excited about that deadline back in May, but I’m totally willing to listen to why I should drop everything and cover the heck out of it.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Wait, was that extra e in Liberals a typo, or is this turning into one of *those* comment threads? Because those don’t tend to produce nearly as interesting a conversation as we’re having next door in VeiledVotingVille, where my use of the word “xenophobes” is being dissected so gleefully.

  • http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com Scott Tribe

    You shouldn’t even have to ask that question, Kady.. That spelling is deliberate and a dead giveaway that Mr “know” is either a Small Dead Animals or Western Standard reader.

    As for why the Tories are excited about this – they aren’t really.. they’re just trying to use it to hood wink the Canadian electorate and media into believing there’s anything to the charge that Elections Canada is “biased” against them.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    I’m confused, though. Has Elections Canada ever refused an offer from a party to postpone leadership debt repayment? Actually, isn’t this one of those new provisions that emanated out of the last round of Elections Act reforms, AKA the Accountability Act? Won’t we have to wait for another party to hold a leadership race before we have a data point to which to compare this one?

  • Mike G

    Every time you use “Colleague X”, I read it as “Comrade X”, so I think you should just start using that. Doesn’t “Comrade Selley” just roll off the tongue better anyhow?

    Maybe I will start using it, at least.

    Also, though this is the nitpickiest thing I could possibly comment on, it’s ouroboros or sometimes ourobouros. It’s a great word, though, either way.

  • http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ Steve V

    Kady

    Maybe you could do a piece on how Conservatives have been offered extensions by Elections Canada, because they have. In the interest of fairness and all, not to mention the hypocrisy (yes you Pierre).

  • Geiseric the Lame

    So Kady,

    while you’re glancing through the trickle of mainstream articles on the (those, actually) report(s) about Chalk River that was “released” today, don’t stop until you find one about Talisman International’s.

    there’s a bit of snafflegrab going on.

  • Geiseric the Lame
  • Mike Horn

    Are there any other failed commitees which might be creating issues for the next election? Did the acountability act make it through or was it an early victim?

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Mike – Well, if the government ever wants to pass another crime bill, they’re going to have to bring back the Justice committee, which would mean calling the vote o n Art Hanger’s decision to rule the motion calling for an inquiry into the Cadman Affair out of order.

    The Accountability Act sailed through at warp speed, relatively speaking, as it had the the support of various – and occasionally all three – opposition parties at different stages of the bill. The bill to elect senators, on the other hand, isn’t likely to make it out of the legislative committee intact, and will probably be summarily eviscerated when it hits the Other Place, and there are probably other legislative time bombs that I’m forgetting.

  • john g

    Kady, if you are so inclined I’d certainly like to know on what basis EC decides whether or not it will grant an extension for leadership debts. What are the criteria? Why does Ken Dryden get almost 2 more years to pay off his debts???

    Most importantly…why would EC put itself in the position of being arbiter of who gets extensions and who doesn’t without very objective criteria and without providing any explanation for their decision? What’s the point of an 18 month time limit when you’ll be given another 24 months just for asking? Why would an agency so obviously interested in how the media covers it open itself up to such an obvious claim of bias and partisanship?

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    John G – I found this in a backgrounder on the Elections Canada website – it’s fairly extensive, but if you want more information, the Elections Act lays out the process in some detail:

    3. Payment made after the 18-month deadline

    Contestants who have not fully paid their debts but intend to do so must seek the authorization of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEA, s. 435.26) for a late payment. This authorization must be granted before any late payment is made.

    The Chief Electoral Officer is required to consider each case according to its circumstances and may impose appropriate terms and conditions for any late payments (CEA, s. 435.26). Under similar rules that exist for candidates during an election, the Chief Electoral Officer has normally authorized late payments as long as the sources of all contributions and details of all loan repayment schedules are disclosed.

    The documents submitted in support of a request for late payment and the Chief Electoral Officer’s decision will be made public within 60 days.

    An application to a judge for an extension can be made if the Chief Electoral Officer has refused the contestant’s request for a late payment or if the campaign did not pay its debts within the extended time frame (CEA, s. 435.27).

    The Canada Elections Act requires contestants to update their return 30 days after the payment of a claim or the final payment on a loan is made. The updated return will include the sources of funds that have not already been disclosed and an auditor’s report.

    I don’t think there would be much credence in any allegation of bias and partisanship given that similar extensions have been granted to Conservative candidates who have failed to pay off campaign loans within the prescribed period of time, which is also eighteen months. Honestly, I think the faux outrage over what appears to be an entirely commonplace practice is a bit of red herring-ing by the Conservative Party.

  • David

    Ourobo[u]ros.

    Classic.

  • john g

    Thanks very much for digging that up Kady.

    But I didn’t make my point very clear. The apprehension of bias is because the decision of whether or not to grant an extension is at the sole discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer, based on what he or she considers “reasonable grounds”.

    You may be right when you say that similar extensions have been granted to others. Frankly, I’m left wondering why there is even an 18 month time limit. It seems like it is violated by everyone with complete impunity.

    In the Liberals case, all but 2 of their candidates have debts that extend beyond 18 months, and they all get 18 month extensions. Dryden got a 24 month extension.

    What is the point of an 18 month limit if almost every candidate violates it and nobody gets their knuckles rapped?

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Oh, I am right, no worries. As for the notion that the eighteen month deadline is simply too short — and as such, not enforceable — perhaps that is why the government brought in C-29, which would extend it to three years, although I should note that in its original form, the bill the current regime intact, but was amended at committee stage to provide a more generous repayment schedule. The Conservatives did vote in favour of the amended bill, however, which – barring Senate shenanigans, or prorogation before Royal Assent – would come into force at the end of the year.

  • Steph C

    Speaking of the Chief Electoral Officer, CPAC is airing the Ethics Cttee session of July 15. Part 1 was on yesterday; Part 2 today @ 11:28 a.m. Relive the Tory indignation and string of points of order. Good times!

  • Mike Horn

    Your question is a good one John G. what’s the point of a rule if nearly everyone asks for an exception. Let’s consider that the majority of leadership candidates will only make one try for the position in thier whole careers. Therefor the Chief Electoral Officer, or Chief for short, is always dealing with a bunch of leadership virgins. I imagine that the Chief needs this flexibility as much as the candidates do. Otherwise candidates would all have to ask a judge to overrule the Chief. Also the Chiefs website clearly states that everyone asking for an extension has to at least be on top of the paperwork and have a repayment schedual. This sort of flexible authority allows the Chief to grant small favours and demand cooperation in return. It also reminds some of the most egotistical politicians, that there’s at least one civil servant who is owed thier respect and obediance. And wouldn’t it be more political for the Chief to be hard on MPs during a minority government?

  • john g

    Mike Horn, you make some good points.

    But I certainly find it suspicious that the Conservatives can be accused of a concerted and collective effort to thwart spending limits, yet no one bats an eye when 8 out of 10 Liberal leadership candidates borrow beyond their means to pay back within 18 months.

    One could easily surmise that the Liberals made a deliberate decision up front to flaunt the 18 month limit across the board and beg for the extensions later. Which, if true, doesn’t seem much different to me than what the Conseratives are accused of.

  • T. Thwim

    The difference being that what the Liberals did is.. well.. legal.

    Or should laws only apply to the other guys?

  • Geiseric the Lame

    “The difference being that what the Liberals did is.. well.. legal…”

    Not so easy to see that from a high horse.

From Macleans