Advice and Consent

"I think everybody should take a Valium."
"It's not as good as some people say. It's certainly not as bad as some people say."
"The notion that we're going to be keeping hundreds of thousands of people from voting is fiction. It's the worst kind of creationism."
"The success of this legislation will depend upon the ability of both sides to put a little bit of water in their wine because in the end, if the only people supporting it are the government and there are no amendments brought in of any kind, it probably won't be as effective as if there was some multi-partisan presence."
"If you're open-minded to some measure of amendment, you want to wait until all the views are in and all the hearings are finished. I think there's a lot of room for a lot of people to look at where improvements might be appropriate, but I actually think the bill is a pretty good bill to begin with."
"Sheila Fraser, as the co-chair, has decided to express her own points of view on the present legislation and good luck to her. She has the right to do that, but that to my understanding is not why the advisory board was put together."
Canadian Senator Hugh Segal

Sen. Hugh Segal, pictured at his office on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Photo: Dave Chan/Postmedia News

Senator Segal refers to an advisory panel put together by Elections Canada for the purpose of giving advice to Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand. The advice relating directly to the support of democracy and the overhaul of the elections system. The Conservative-led Government of Canada is preparing to introduce the Fair Elections Act. Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre has been denounced for some of the provisions in the proposed Act, by critics incensed that 'vouching' is set to be set aside.

Canadian citizens wishing to exercise their franchise must produce identification at the polling booth. On the Minister's website it states:

The Fair Elections Act will:

• Prohibit the use of Voter Information Cards as a form of acceptable identification; and,
• Require in law that Elections Canada communicate what forms of ID will be accepted at polling locations so that voters will know before they head to the polls what they will need to bring.

Even with this change, Canadians will continue to have 39 other authorized forms of ID to choose from when voting.

And it will be up to Elections Canada to notify Canadians in advance of voting day what kinds of personal identification documents will be acceptable to prove their eligibility to vote. The voucher system of voting has a reported high percentage of 'irregularities'. The introduction of the Fair Elections Act is meant to ensure that those who vote in Canadian elections have the legal right to do so. Without resort to means of less assurance of lawfulness.

It seems unreasonably absurd in the extreme to posit the view that there are some Canadian citizens who are unable to produce identification to enable them to cast their vote. Identification types abound, from communications from various levels of government to driver's licenses, passports and services invoices, along with university registration documents and utilities bills, and any number of other i.d. documents, including library membership or specially issued government identity cards.

Debate on Bill C31, Canada Elections Act, November 25, 2007: The identification card can be a health insurance card, social insurance card, birth certificate, driver’s licence, Canadian passport, a credit card to identify the name, a Canadian Forces identity card, a health card, employer card or old age security card, or a public transportation card. There are also documents that can establish name and address, such as a credit card statement, a bank statement, a utility bill such as a telephone, cable, hydro, gas or water bill, or a bill from a public utilities commission. This can also be a local property tax assessment, a residential lease or, for students, a school report card or transcript; and the list goes on." From 2007 openparliament.ca

The bill is being studied by a House of Commons committee hearing testimony from current and former elections officers, most of whom condemn the bill over elimination of the vouching process and other provisions that are claimed will emasculate the power of the chief electoral officer. It should be pointed out that we elect lawmakers to Parliament for the purpose of governing. Appointed officials do not govern; they advise when requested to, and their advice is either taken or set aside.

Former auditor general Sheila Fraser has entered the verbal fray over the presumptive Act, condemning it and citing the reasons already protested by the office of the chief electoral officer. Ms. Fraser, in her capacity as co-chair of the advisory panel stands to earn up to $65,000 for her work on that panel. Senator Segal and John Manley, former Liberal Cabinet Minister and currently CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives have both waived the fees offered them for sitting on the Elections Canada panel.

Members of the Elections Canada advisory board are paid per diems of $1,500 and up for co-chairs. "I said to them I'm already paid by Her Majesty to be a member of the Senate", responded Senator Segal in accepting the post gratis. According to Senator Segal the panel has met several times, once in person and once by teleconference, the third meeting cancelled. The purpose of the panel it would seem, to counter what is seen as the government's efforts to have Elections Canada seen as behaving in a partisan manner.

Little wonder about that; most arms of the government represented by the civil service have been permanently permeated by Liberal sympathizers who instinctively bristle at anything new and different the Conservative government seeks to implement. The bureaucracy is, for all intents and purposes, like the CBC, and most Canadian media, Liberal in character, hostile to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government.

Hugh Segal claims not to have noticed much concern about the proposed new election law from other Senate Conservatives. "It wasn't my sense there are many people on my side who are deeply troubled by the bill." So is it likely the (Conservative-majority) Senate will seek to veto it, particularly after Minister Poilievre informed the Senate Conservative caucus of his willingness to reconsider some of its provisions?