“We know that that the government is now well over a year overdue for getting legislation before the House. What can possibly excuse them for not having a bill now on the Order Paper and be ready to table it now, given that supposedly it was ready last May before some kind of caucus pushback caused the former minister to pull it back? Why can’t another five months be enough for them to be ready as soon as parliament returns which is now to table its bill? I have absolutely no confidence in this government and there’s nothing the minister has done to suggest he’s worthy of confidence either,” said NDP MP Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth, Ont.), his party’s democratic reform critic.
Parliament returned after a 16-week summer break with a Throne Speech on Oct. 16.
As the federal government’s “roadmap” for this session, the Throne Speech outlined that: “The road to 2017 is a fitting time to strengthen our institutions and democratic processes. The government continues to believe the status quo in the Senate of Canada is unacceptable. The Senate must be reformed or, as with its provincial counterparts, vanish. The government will proceed upon receiving the advice of the Supreme Court. And, the government will propose changes to Canada’s elections laws to uphold the integrity of our voting system. Legislation will be introduced in time for implementation prior to the next federal election.”
Following issues surrounding automated telephone calls to voters in the May 2011 election directing them to the wrong polling stations, MPs voted unanimously to deal with the issue by bringing in legislation to give Elections Canada the tools it needs to prevent fraud “within six months” of adopting the motion. That was in March 2012 and no legislation appeared on the order paper.
One did appear on the notice paper, titled An Act to enact the Canada Political Financing Act and to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts, but was withdrawn because the Conservatives said it needed to improve it.
Mr. Scott speculated that government would table an omnibus electoral reform bill this session covering robocalls and initiatives found in Bill C-21, the Political Loans Accountability Bill.
Mr. Scott asked during Question Period last Thursday when Canadians would see the bill, and Democratic Reform Minister of State Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton, Ont.) replied: “In time for it to be implemented before the next election.”
Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has previously said in order for the bill to be useful for the next election, he needs to have the bill implemented by spring of 2014.
NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.) told The Hill Times recently that it’s “reprehensible” the Conservatives have not moved on these reforms.
“There’s no urgency there, I think they’re hoping to rag the puck until the next election call in 18 months or two years, and operate under the old rules. Elections Canada said they need the new rules now and this government seems to have a hate-on for Elections Canada, unlike any party I’ve seen before,” he said.
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe, Ont.) said in the House last week that the Conservatives are still receiving input from the public on the bill.
“With regard to election reform legislation, I think it is clear that there has been a continuing stream of submissions from important panels, including the chief electoral officer,” Mr. Van Loan said. “I know the minister is taking all of this into account and wants to make sure that all the considerations are taken into account so we have the best possible legislation in place for the next election. I look forward to that being introduced in the House and hopefully being supported by all sides of the House.”
Mr. Scott said, however, that he doesn’t believe the government will table “a robust bill, much less one in time” for the expected October 2015 election.
Meanwhile, Elections Canada last week announced that it created an advisory board with 13 members to provide the chief electoral office with “non-partisan advice on matters related to Canada’s electoral system.”
Mr. Scott noted that Mr. Mayrand, who was unavailable for an interview with The Hill Times, likely felt he needed a “high-powered advisory board” because of the government’s resistance to Elections Canada.
“The real issue, and the real story if you like, is the chief electoral officer Mr. Mayrand thought it was both desirable and necessary,” Mr. Scott said. “Why, at this point in time, would an agent of Parliament, an officer of Parliament think that he needs such a high-powered advisory board if it were not for the fact that he’s had many years of resistance almost bordering on combat with the Conservative Party and is expecting he’s going to need as much high profile backing as he can get as the Conservatives move forward to 2015?”
Mr. Scott said. “I am only guessing, but he’s very concerned about making sure that he gets a very strong cast of respected citizens who are on his side of the street, if you like, when the Conservatives either table a bill that needs to be pushed because it’s inadequate or when the Conservatives continue to engage in the kinds of shenanigans they’ve been engaging in for a long time with respect to accountability and robocalls and those sorts of things.”
The advisory board is chaired by former Supreme Court justice Ian Binnie and former auditor general Sheila Fraser. The other members are “prominent Canadians representing a wide range of fields including political process, public service, law, media, community and academic leadership,” including Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, former Conservative finance minister Michael Wilson, former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, former Reform leader Preston Manning, former Liberal leader Bob Rae and Canadian Council of Chief Executives president and former Liberal Cabinet minister John Manley. Other members include Lise Bissonnette, Roberta Jamieson, Michèle Thibodeau-DeGuire, Paul Thomas, and Cathy Wong. All are appointed for three years, and will meet twice a year, starting next month.
“The electoral process is in a period of change and needs to adapt to the expectations of Canadians in the 21st century,” Mr. Mayrand said in a press release. “I believe that our electoral system will benefit from the informed perspective and advice garnered from such a diverse range of Canadians, with valuable backgrounds and experiences.”
The advisory board’s mandate is “to study and provide advice on matters related to Canada’s electoral system including the conduct of elections, electoral participation both by voters and political participants, regulatory compliance, and electoral reform.”
The board will be looking at issues such as: “the conduct and oversight of elections; electoral participation, including candidacy; regulatory compliance; stakeholder engagement, including the relationship with political entities; accountability to Parliament; electoral reform; and such other issues as the CEO or the Board in consultation with the CEO may identify.”
Mr. Binnie, who said he and Ms. Fraser were selected to chair the board because of their neutrality, told The Hill Times that he’s looking forward to working with Mr. Mayrand on these issues.
“I think it’s a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful challenge. It’s hard to imagine a more important issue than improving the electoral process and, to the extent that I can have a hand in it, I think it’s a great opportunity,” he said. “I think the election process in Canada is in considerable difficulty with about half the electorate voting and very poor representation from young people and different ethnic communities and First Nations. Governments are elected by minorities within a minority and in the long run, it’s not healthy. The chief electoral officer seems determined to fix the problem. To the extent that any of us can be of assistance to him, it’s a good thing to do.”
When reached for comment about the advisory board, Mr. Poilievre’s communications director Gabrielle Renaud-Mattey said the office had “no comment.”
When asked when and how the electoral reform legislation would take shape, she said she could not speculate on it.
Mr. Scott said the government should welcome the advisory board and carefully listen to what it has to say to Mr. Mayrand, but said he doesn’t have high hopes that the board will have significant impact.
“Nothing that’s either leading them outside of their ambit of this government ever makes much of a difference unless they see some kind of political pay off to changing their tune, which is exactly what we saw in the Throne Speech,” he said.
“At some cynical level, I would say no, it will have no impact at all but at another level, it will certainly allow Canadians as well as the official opposition to be able to make clear when the government is prevaricating—that’s the nicest way to put it—or deliberately engaging in obstructionism. They’re going to act in a non-partisan way, but non-partisan doesn’t mean that you can’t be critical of a government that’s deliberately trying to undermine our electoral system and more broadly our democracy.”
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: Bea Vongdouangchanh
No comments:
Post a Comment