Fair Elections Act

Vouching is the practice of allowing a voter with proper identification to vouch for the identity of another individual who lives in the same polling area. This allows for circumstances in which someone may have moved shortly before an election and does not yet have identification showing the new address, or people who do not have driver's licenses. Approximately 120,000 voters in the 2011 general election used vouching. While there have been issues noted with the record keeping on vouching, there is no record of vouching resulting in someone voting improperly. While some challenged the need for eliminating vouching, the Conservatives pointed out that Elections Canada recognizes 39 types of identification.[23] The amendments to the bill proposed by the Conservatives on April 25 modified this provision to allow a voter with identification to sign a written oath of their residence and have that co-signed by another voter with fully proven ID. This process, for example, would allow an aboriginal with a status Indian card, which does not list address, to use that ID and sign an oath regarding their residency.[21]

The bill would exempt from campaign spending limits the costs of fundraising efforts directed at people who had donated $20 or more in the previous five years. This would have allowed parties to spend unlimited funds on soliciting the renewal of support from past supporters. A concern was this would provide additional benefit to the party with the largest current support base, which is currently the Conservatives. The amendments announced by the Conservatives on April 25 removed this provision.[21]

The bill placed restrictions on what the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) can say publicly, in particular, the CEO would not have been allowed to encourage people to vote – only to give technical information on how to vote. The Conservatives argued that it is the job of political parties to get people to vote, but other groups note that broadly encouraging people to participate in voting is a legitimate role of the CEO, particularly in light of declining voter turnout. This provision in the bill would likely have ended Elections Canada supported programs such as Student Vote, an initiative to boost civic literacy in children. The amendments announced by the Conservatives on April 25 were described as removing restrictions on what the CEO can communicate, but not the limitations on funding voter participation programs.[21]

The Commissioner of Canada Elections is the top investigative official for possible irregularities in campaigning and carrying out of elections. The bill would transfer the Commissioner from reporting to the Chief Electoral Officer to reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The current Commissioner, Yves Côté, has said the move is "not a step in the right direction" and that he has a "deep concern" with proposals to limit what he can say publicly. The current Chief Electoral Officer has warned that this provision needs rules guaranteeing the CEO and the Commissioner can still share information.

The previous rules restricted to $200,001 the amount any group can spend on political advertising during a political campaign. Under the new bill, this would become the limit on spending in relation to an election, limiting the total spending on political communications in the four to five years between elections. While Democracy Watch noted this restriction would likely be struck down by a court, it was accused of putting a chill on groups that might otherwise carry out communications before the next election in 2015.

The bill would require the central poll supervisor (the person in charge of a particular polling station) to be appointed from a list of individuals provided by the candidate of the party that won that riding in the previous election. Although the bill allows the returning offer to refuse such appointments "on reasonable grounds" it does not define what qualifies as reasonable grounds.[24] The amendments announced by the Conservatives on April 25 were described as maintaining Elections Canada's discretion in appointing central poll supervisors.[21]

Carleton University public policy professor[25] Ian Lee supported the Fair Elections Act.

Although he later changed his mind,[26][27] Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the former Chief Electoral Officer, gave the Fair Elections Act an A minus.[28] He said he would have liked to see tougher fines, but said, overall, it was a "good bill."

On April 10, 2014, Sun Media columnist Ezra Levant claimed most of the Fair Elections Act was administrative in nature, and that eliminating the use of vouching was perfectly reasonable.[29]

On April 13, 2014, Huffington Post Canada columnist J.J. McCullough said he supported the bill and that Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand had a vested interest in defending his organization's mandate, staff, and budget.[30]

• Costas Menegakis[31]
• Steven Fletcher
• Gordon O'Connor
• Chris Warkentin
• Larry Miller
• Bob Dechert
• Greg Rickford

On March 24, 2014, the minister who introduced the bill, Pierre Poilievre, wrote an editorial for The Globe and Mail on why the Fair Elections Act was "in fact, fair."[32]

On April 15, 2014, Conservative MP James Rajotte said that while he personally supported the Fair Elections Act, he had been getting a lot of feedback from his constituents, "including the curtailing of vouching, an expense exemption for calls to donors who've previously donated money to a political party, partisan appointments of polling day officials and the curbing of the ability of Elections Canada to attempt to increase voter turnout."[13]

One hundred and sixty professors signed a National Post editorial that stated "if passed", the Fair Elections Act "would damage the institution at the heart of our country's democracy: voting in federal elections."[33]

Postmedia News listed nine newspapers which opposed the Fair Elections Act and called for a "national conversation" on what should be implemented.[34] They include:

• Ottawa Citizen
• Montreal Gazette
• Calgary Herald
• Vancouver Sun
• Edmonton Journal
• Saskatoon StarPhoenix

The Globe and Mail editorial board wrote a series of five editorials critical of the Act, and called for it to be killed altogether.[22]

On April 9, 2014, Liberal Party of Canada leader Justin Trudeau said he would repeal the Fair Elections Act if elected Prime Minister.[35]

Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand came out strongly against the proposed legislation. However, the appropriateness of his comments, and even his right to make critical comments on proposed legislation were challenged by others. Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski accused Mayrand of political activism, and of giving a "campaign-style speech" to Elections Canada staff in order to stir up dissent and opposition to the bill.[36] Ezra Levant stated that never before has a public servant, whose job is to remain neutral and implement government directives, gone on the offensive in publicly attacking a proposed government policy.[29] Conservative Senator Linda Frum claimed Mayrand was in a conflict of interest by being allowed to run "Get out the Vote" initiatives in order to increase voter turnout and in having a vested interest in seeing voter turnout rise.[37] The Fair Elections Act provision to re-focus Elections Canada's mandate, was interpreted as an effort to eliminate the Get out the Vote campaigns.

Although he was initially in favour of the Fair Elections Act,[28] former Elections Canada CEO Jean-Pierre Kingsley later commented that a subsequent change to the act to abolish the process of vouching "will impact very negatively on the values of participation, impartiality and transparency" and "will directly affect the constitutional right to vote of a significant number of Canadians without justification."[26] Kingsley also disagreed with a provision in the Bill that would allow parties to exclude from limits on campaign spending any money spent to raise donations from people who donated $20 or more in the previous five years. He said that this exempted fundraising activity would effectively be advertising and that the exemption would favour larger parties.[27]

Democracy Watch, a non-profit organization, was against the Fair Elections Act. It laid out its opposition in the Globe and Mail on April 7, 2014[38] and also in a news release and submission to the House of Commons committee reviewing the bill on April 8, 2014.[39]