On Monday, the British Columbia government introduced new legislation that proposes to ban corporate, union and foreign donations in a move that will dramatically change B.C.’s political landscape and bring the province in line with other Canadian jurisdictions.

“This legislation will make sure 2017 was the last big-money election in our province,” said Attorney General David Eby. “The days of limitless donations, a lack of transparency and foreign and corporate influence over our elections are history.”

Here are your Top 5 questions on the ban answered:

1) What will be different now?

Everything. This is probably the most game-changing moment in B.C. politics in living memory. Up until now, corporations and unions could donate as much money as they wanted to B.C. political parties, even though such donations are banned federally and in most provinces.

Individuals anywhere in the world were also allowed to give unlimited amounts of dough to B.C. politicians, but not any more. Now donations will be limited to B.C. residents, with a limit of $1,200 a year —  the second-lowest limit in Canada behind Quebec.

“Any time you change a system that places no limitations on donations to a system that does, you’re going to see big, big changes,” University of British Columbia political scientists Max Cameron told DeSmog Canada.

“I think this is going to change how parties work, how campaigns work and change our system to make it more attentive to the preference of ordinary voters.”

Political parties will also have to publicly report all fundraisers attended by party leaders, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. And those fancy-pants dinners can no longer come at a ticket price of $10,000 (a la Christy Clark). Fundraisers at private residences are still allowed, but tickets can be sold for a max of $100.

2) When will the changes apply?

Well, first the bill needs to pass, but that’s very likely because it’s the product of the agreement between the Green Party and the NDP and together they have enough seats to win a vote in the legislature.

The changes will then apply retroactively to the date of the last election, which means parties won't be able to spend any donations they’ve received from corporations and unions since May 9 during the next election. That’s going to come as a big blow to the BC Liberals who deposited $1 million in donations just three days after the last election.

Seven of the 10 largest donations came from developers. Other donors included Chevron Canada, Encana and Enbridge. Once this bill is passed, those donations will not be allowed to be used in future elections.

3) Why is this such a big deal?

Basically, up until now anyone with deep pockets has been able to buy access to B.C. politicians. The latest example is how a bunch of oil and gas companies re-wrote B.C.’s so-called climate plan in a Calgary boardroom.

Before that there was the case of Imperial Metals, the company responsible for the Mount Polley mine disaster. Imperial was a major donor to the BC Liberal party and was never charged or fined for the disaster.

Many British Columbians have also been concerned that the NDP is too beholden to unions because of large donations to the party. Now that’s all about to come to a stop.

4) So how will political parties fund election campaigns?

Well, first of all, campaign spending limits have been decreased by about 25 per cent, so less money will be spent overall in elections. For instance, candidates used to be able to spend about $78,000 per riding, but that limit is now reduced to $58,000.

Still, elections cost money, so where will that come from? The bill introduced a plan for a per-vote subsidy intended to assist in transitioning to the new rules. The move mirrors a similar temporary transition plan at the federal level but was not expected to form a part of the NDP’s electoral reform plan.

The subsidies are expected to cost B.C. taxpayers an estimated $27.5 million over the next four years.

According to the bill, a special legislative committee will evaluate the annual allowances to parties and determine if changes should be made. If no amendments are made to the bill once it is put into place, it means an expiration of allowances will take place in 2022.

Some reimbursements for election expenses will remain in place permanently.

While the BC Liberals have already stated publicly they will vote against the bill, saying the public should not pay parties directly, UBC political scientist Max Cameron says money for elections has to come from somewhere.

“We’re already publicly funding parties, but because it’s not visible, you don’t hear people being upset about it,” Cameron said. “Tax returns for political donations — that’s coming from the taxpayer, it’s a form of publicly subsidizing political parties.”

“Parties have to be funded from somewhere and I actually think political parties are providing a vital public service,” he said.

5 Things You Need to Know About BC's Ban on Big Money https://t.co/X750XZPxOU @bcndp #banbigmoney @bcliberals @bcgreens #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 20, 2017

5) What about loopholes?

Goooooood question.

The government tried to get out ahead of the game by applying the restrictions to third-party election advertisers, who've taken advantage of campaign finance rules in other jurisdictions. The restrictions aim to prevent external organizations from becoming fundraising proxies, like Super PACS have in the U.S. However, just what constitutes a third-party advertiser has been the subject of some debate and a lack of clarity on this issue remains a controversy at the federal level.

Election fundraising rules are only ever as good as their watchdogs. In the last few decades, politicians have been caught spending beyond campaign limits, misreporting financials and violating conflict of interest rules.

Some people have raised concerns about the $1,200 limit, saying businesses and unions can funnel donations through executives, employees and their relatives.

In September 2016, it was discovered that between 2004 and 2011, executives of SNC Lavalin Group Inc. funnelled $118,000 in donations to the federal Liberals and Conservatives— $110,000 and $8,000, respectively — disguised as donations from individuals who worked at SNC or their family members.

Cameron said the $1,200 limit provides a good protective measure against circumventing the rules.

“With the cap as it is, I think it gets a lot harder to see the bundling of donations that we’ve seen elsewhere.”

Image: Green party leader Andrew Weaver and Premier John Horgan annouce campaign finance reform. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Christy Clark recently turned down the opportunity to limit foreign and corporate donations to political parties in campaigns. She justified her position by simply stating, “I represent everyone.”   Yet a new poll conducted by Insights West found the vast majority of British Columbians — 86 per cent — support a ban on both corporate and union political donations.   The poll, conducted on behalf of the Dogwood Initiative, a democracy advocacy organization, suggests Clark’s cozy relationship with major foreign and corporate donors could put her in the hot seat leading into the province’s next election.   That seat is likely to be even hotter after revelations Clark takes a cut of funds donated to the B.C. Liberal party through exclusive cash-for-access events that can cost up to $20,000 dollars to attend.   A high percentage of B.C. Liberal donors, 81 per cent, and an even higher number of B.C. NDP voters, 91 per cent, support putting a ban on corporate and union donations before the next election.

B.C. has long been called the “wild west of campaign donations” because, unlike most other provinces in Canada, it has no rules to prevent unlimited, foreign, union and corporate money from pouring into elections.    It’s a problem the Dogwood Initiative would like to see remedied through its Ban Big Money campaign before British Columbians hit the polls in early 2017. The group’s recent House of Cards-esque trailer for the corrupting influence of money in B.C. elections has been viewed on Facebook over 85,000 times.

BC's House of Cash

With apologies to Netflix, here's the high-stakes drama British Columbians can't get enough of: http://BanBigMoney.ca #BanBigMoney

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at Dogwood, said B.C. has created a situation “that has made bribery legal.”   He said the recent spate of arrests of cabinet ministers in Quebec on corruption and fraud charges were for activities “commonplace and totally protected by law in B.C.”   Recent Elections B.C. data on 2015 political donations shows that since 2005 the B.C. Liberal party raised $70.2 million from corporate and business donors. In that same period three donors exceeded donations of one million: Encana Corporation at $1.1 million, the Aquilini Group ($1.2 million) and Teck Resources ($2.3 million).

“So you ask companies, ‘why would you donate that money to a political party?’ It’s not charity; it’s an investment because you get something back,” Nagata said.   “You get policy decidedly tilted in favour of people who are able to fund political campaigns and ordinary citizens have their voices diluted in this process.”   “You go anywhere in this province and it’s hard not to see that virtually everything is for sale,” Nagata said, listing contracts for the Site C dam, B.C.’s trophy hunting, U.S. coal exports, LNG projects and the contemptible Vancouver real estate scene.   “There are a lot of decisions by government —decisions or calculated inaction — that amount to outcomes that are against public interest.”   “In B.C. because laws are so permissive people can donate unlimited amounts of money from overseas,” Nagata said. “So you don’t even have to be from Canada to have a say in public policy in B.C.”   Dermod Travis from IntegrityBC said there are a number of issues with political donations in B.C. that cause him concern.   “The most concerning thing is that money is being donated by corporations and individuals that can’t vote in the province,” Travis said. “If you can’t check a ballot, you shouldn’t be allowed to donate funds.”   Travis said British Columbians are worried about the level of influence companies like Encana and Teck Resources are able to purchase with consistently large donations.   “With Encana you see exactly what kind of sweetheart deals people have come to expect,” he said.   Travis said the BC Liberals consistently award contracts to companies that are party donors.   “Look at the companies that Partnerships B.C. has awarded construction contracts to and you will see a direct correlation between being contracts and being a donor to the BC Liberals.”   “People don’t have enough assurance the government is protecting the public’s interest, rather than corporate interests,” he said.   Travis also criticized the data publicly released by Elections B.C., saying the documents aren’t easily searchable which creates convenient loopholes for individuals who want to mask their donations.   “There are little tricks that get played in the process,” Travis said. “I’ll use my own name as an example: if you were to use the Elections B.C. database and search Dermod Travis any donations I made as Dermod J. Travis would not show up and that’s a problem.”   Both individuals and companies take advantage of this “initial game,” Travis said, “you might be left with the impression it was done deliberately so you couldn’t find their donations.”   He said an outright ban on corporate donations and a strict cap on individual donations would eliminate that problem.   “I think it creates an incredible level of cynicism that’s going to take a long time to remove even with a ban on these types of donations,” Travis said.   “It creates sense that there are winners and losers and the only way to be a winner is to be a donor.”   By leaving donor rules so open, government is fostering a sense of mistrust in the public, Nagata said.   “By refusing to take action to limit corporate money in elections they are leaving the question to voters: is government making decisions on behalf of citizens and in the public interest or are those decisions informed by the amount of money donated to politicians’ campaigns by these large corporations?”   “Obviously you don’t give someone a million dollars and say do whatever you want. There’s an expectation of a quid pro quo,” Nagata said.   “Citizens can’t collectively donate that amount of money to balance that influence — all you have is your vote,” Nagata said. “People don’t even do that because they feel cynical about the whole process.”   “That’s what we see, that’s our diagnosis. It seems the solution is simple: the government could restore public trust by not taking money from these outside influences and ensure they are making decisions on behalf of those who elected them.”

For more on political donations and how they cost taxpayers money, watch Kai Nagata break it down in this video below:  

How corruption can increase your tax bill

B.C.'s weak political donation laws leave the door open to corruption. Corruption destroys democracy and costs taxpayers, too. Join the movement to #BanBigMoney in B.C. politics: www.BanBigMoney.ca

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Image: Province of British Columbia/Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Well, the disclosure statements are in and we now know (sort of) how much was spent trying to sway voters during B.C.’s local elections in November.

In addition to disclosures on how much candidates spent during the elections, there are also filings for more than 100 organizations registered with Elections BC as third-party sponsors. This is the first time third parties have been forced to register with Elections BC and report their spending — and at least two resource companies are in the mix.

Big third-party advertisers include Woodfibre LNG, which spent $18,248 on newspaper and radio ads in Squamish, where the company is proposing a liquefied natural gas export terminal. The company spent 17 times what it would be allowed to spend per capita during a provincial election, according to analysis by Integrity BC — a non-profit organization that campaigns to reform B.C.’s electoral finance.

That’s because B.C. still has no limits on spending during local elections — despite a task force recommending limits be implemented back in 2010.

Integrity BC’s Dermod Travis notes that all that spending didn’t work out so well for Woodfibre LNG. Patricia Heintzman won the mayor's chair with a spend of $11,842, defeating the more LNG-friendly incumbent Rob Kirkham.

KGHM Spends $8,600 on Ajax Mine Letter

Meanwhile in Kamloops, KGHM International spent $8,605 on a mailing about its proposed Ajax Mine — an open-pit copper and gold mine proposed within Kamloops city limits. The company writes in a post on its website that the letter was sent to a “group of Ajax supporters.” The letter included a list of all candidates running for Kamloops city council and listed their public positions on the Ajax mine.

“At a cost of $8,605 that was either one very large group or one very long letter,” Travis notes. “Didn't work out so well for the mine either when the results came in.”

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Spending Remains a Mystery

As is often the case, the biggest story may be in what we don't know.

In October, Elections BC ruled that Kinder Morgan didn’t need to register as a third-party sponsor despite launching a major advertising offensive about its proposed Trans Mountain oilsands pipeline to Burnaby during the election. Due to that ruling, Kinder Morgan’s spending during the election will forever remain a mystery.

Photo: My Sea to Sky

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Imagine having to read through 10,000 written comments on the same topic. It would probably be a touch on the tedious side — yet that’s exactly what a task force did back in 2010 before issuing 31 recommendations to reform our province’s municipal elections.

The task force included three Liberal MLAs and four elected officials from towns and cities across British Columbia.

What was the most egregious problem they found during their investigation? Campaign finance rules.

In a nutshell, local elections in B.C. have been the Wild West of campaign finance — with candidates allowed to take donations from anyone and spend as much as they like.

Third parties, such as business groups, have also been allowed to drop unlimited wads of cash during elections and, worse, they haven’t even had to register or disclose how much they spend.

Since B.C.’s local election laws were way out of date (campaign spending limits have been in place at the federal level since 1974 and at the provincial level since 1995), the plan was for the task force’s recommendations to be implemented in time for the 2011 local government elections.

“The task force strongly believes that if implemented these recommendations would make a positive difference to local elections in British Columbia,” the report read.

Well, surprise, surprise — the recommendations weren’t implemented in time for the 2011 elections after all.

And in those elections, Vancouver businessman Rob Macdonald infamously cut a cheque for $960,000 to the Non-Partisan Association. In many other Canadian cities, donations of this size aren't allowed. (In Montreal, the annual cap is $300, in Toronto it’s $2,500, in Winnipeg it’s $750 and in Calgary it’s $5,000.)

Fast-forward three years to last week, and Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, was passed in the legislature.

When introducing the bill, Coralee Oakes, the province’s community, sport and cultural development minister, hailed it as “the most significant update to B.C.’s local elections process in 20 years.”

The new act will require third-party advertisers to register with Elections BC, identify donors of $50 and more and report expenditures for the first time. It will also require all election advertising to clearly name a sponsor (read that again: up until now, local election ads didn’t even need to say who paid for them).

These are all steps in the right direction — but guess what’s missing?

Yup, candidates and third parties can still spend as much as they please. What is the province’s rationale for delaying the implementation of spending limits until at least 2018 — seven years after they were supposed to have been implemented?

The government claims its two-phase approach to implementing the reforms is to “allow campaign participants to become familiar with the first set of changes before adding expense limits into local elections.”

And then the province promises yet more “engagement” with “key stakeholders” on the issue. Come again?

What was the point of creating a task force that met several times and reviewed 10,000 comments before issuing its recommendations? Not only that, but the recommendations were reached by consensus of all task force members — which included B.C. Liberal cabinet minister Bill Bennett and two other B.C. Liberal MLAs.

The recommendation on expense limits was clear: “The task force believes that expense limits could increase accessibility and fairness by levelling the playing field among candidates; encouraging candidate participation; and reducing the need for large contributions to fund expensive campaigns.”

Why the province would delay on a piece of legislation that has near-unanimous support in B.C. is anyone's guess. University of Victoria political scientist Norman Ruff told DeSmog Canada one possible explanation “is that the municipal scene has become a farm team for the BC Liberals and they might not be too anxious to disturb any advantages currently enjoyed by potentially future provincial Liberal candidates.”

Robert Hobson, a Kelowna city councillor who was on the task force, called the continued delay in introducing spending limits “unfortunate.”

“It’s going to be 2018, seven years later,” Hobson said. “If the recommendations were worth putting in place, I would have thought they were worth putting in place sooner rather than later.”

Hear, hear. In the absence of spending limits, candidates and third parties — including oil pipeline companies such as Enbridge and Kinder Morgan — can spend unlimited amounts of money in this November's municipal elections.

Perhaps in a sign of what's to come, during the recent Kitimat plebiscite Enbridge reported spending at least $22,000, or about $4.50 per eligible voter — 30 times as much as the company could have spent per capita in the riding during a provincial election. (The spending was no biggie to Enbridge, which earned $1.2 billion in 2013, and also didn't seem to help them all that much with 58 per cent of voters rejecting the company's oil pipeline project.)

Still, given Enbridge’s spending in Kitimat, it’s not difficult to imagine how a lack of spending limits could undermine November’s local votes — particularly as British Columbia comes under unprecedented pressure from resource companies, many of them likely keen to dethrone local politicians opposed to their plans.

With no spending limits in sight, British Columbians' best bet is to watch like hawks this fall and make sure corporate advertising backfires — just like it did in Kitimat. It turns out most folks don't like the idea of big bucks swaying the outcome of local votes … it's just too bad the B.C. government doesn't appear to agree.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Enbridge Northern Gateway is covering northern B.C. with ads in the run up to the Kitimat plebiscite, urging citizens to vote in favour of the company’s proposal to ship oil across B.C. and on to Asia on oil tankers.  

During a provincial election or initiative vote, Elections BC restricts how much companies and other third-party advertisers can spend — but no such rules apply to the Kitimat plebiscite, being held on April 12.

Full-page colour ads have appeared in community newspapers in Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Burns Lake and Fort St. James — a town nearly 600 kilometres away from Kitimat. The estimated cost of those ads is about $8,250.

Enbridge has also launched a website, “Vote Yes for Kitimat,” urging citizens to vote in favour of their project. A conservative price tag on the website would be about $2,000, bringing Enbridge’s ad spend so far to more than $10,000 — with four weeks left until the vote.

During a B.C. election, third-party advertising is capped at $3,137.93 per electoral district. During a province-wide initiative vote, third-party advertising is limited to $5,000 per advertiser. The rules apply to all forms of advertising, including media advertising, brochures, signs and websites.

Enbridge’s ad spend on the Kitimat plebiscite so far is more than three times what the company would be allowed to spend in an electoral district during a provincial election. As of 2011, there were about 4,300 eligible voters in the District of Kitimat.

Limits on advertising during voting periods are important to level the playing field, says Dermod Travis of Integrity BC, a non-profit group that advocates for electoral finance reform.

“Corporations can’t vote — they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to influence referendums and elections,” Travis told DeSmog Canada.

On a provincial level, B.C. is the wild west of electoral finance, Travis says, but it’s even worse on the municipal level, governed by the Local Government Act.

“Northern Gateway is free, frankly, to spend as much as they want before, during and after the plebiscite,” Travis says. “They have very deep pockets and are in a far better position to finance a campaign than any grassroots group in Kitimat.”

Despite the fact the Local Government Act doesn’t contain any limits for advertising during elections or plebiscites, Dermod says the District of Kitimat could have put in place rules on a “boy scout’s pledge.”

Warren Waycheshen, deputy chief administrative officer for the District of Kitimat, told DeSmog Canada that staff did consider the advertising issue. However, they didn’t see any way to enforce a spending limit.

“We didn’t really have any mechanism to limit spending,” he said. “There’s no teeth in the Local Government Act.”

The district has banned signs within 100 metres of voting locations on voting days and has taken measures to prevent temporary workers from voting by requiring a valid piece of identification with a Kitimat address, not just a utility statement. There will also be scrutineers present to observe the counting of ballots.

Douglas Channel Watch, a grassroots Kitimat group that has raised concerns about Enbridge’s proposal, took its concerns about Enbridge’s advertising to the District of Kitimat council Monday night. They’ve also announced a door-to-door campaign to get out the vote.

“Rather than throwing millions of dollars into an ad campaign telling people what to think like Enbridge does, we started knocking on doors and asked the people of Kitimat what was most important to them," said Murray Minchin, a member of Douglas Channel Watch.

The Enbridge newspaper ads feature a woman sitting with a coffee cup at her kitchen table, with the caption: "I want my grandchildren to work here."

If the pipeline and oil tanker terminal were built, it would provide about 165 permanent jobs in Kitimat. The new Rio Tinto Alcan smelter is expected to provide 1,000 permanent jobs. Meanwhile, Kitimat LNG, LNG Canada and Douglas Channel Energy Project all have proposed new projects in Kitimat.

The influx of well-paid workers has jacked up rents in Kitimat, and many locals can’t find accommodations, creating a situation Kitimat’s mayor Joanne Monaghan called “desperate” in a recent article in the Globe and Mail about Rio Tinto Alcan bringing in a cruise ship to house temporary workers.

Earlier this year, the District of Kitimat council decided to survey the residents of Kitimat on their opinions on Enbridge’s oil proposal in a non-binding plebiscite vote.

The wording of the ballot question is: Do you support the final report recommendations of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and National Energy Board, that the Enbridge Northern Gateway project be approved, subject to 209 conditions set out in Volume 2 of the JRP's final report?

Advance voting dates are April 2 and April 9, with general voting on April 12.

Enbridge was asked for details of its plebiscite advertising campaign, but did not respond in time for publication.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The changes to Canada’s federal elections proposed in the Fair Elections Act (Bill C-23), threaten to “seriously damage the fairness and transparency of federal elections and diminish Canadians’ political participation,” according to a collective of 160 Canadian professors. The group, comprised of academics specializing in “the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy,” released an open letter Tuesday requesting the federal government “heed calls for wider consultation in vetting this Bill.”

“Beyond our specific concerns about the Bill’s provisions (see below), we are alarmed at the lack of due process in drafting the Bill and in rushing it through Parliament. We see no justification for introducing legislation of such pivotal importance to our democracy without significant consultation with Elections Canada, opposition parties, and the public at large.”

The group of signatories highlight four significant concerns associated with the proposed Fair Elections Act:

1. Voter ID

The group of professors worry the potential dismissal of Voter Information Cards (VICs) and identity 'vouching' will affect the ability of Canadians without government-issued identification proving their current address to vote. “We believe that the elimination of VICs as a valid form of ID in federal elections would reduce the likelihood of voting by some citizens.”

“Currently, Elections Canada protects the right to vote of citizens who lack standard forms of identification by allowing them to take an oath affirming their identity, citizenship, and residence in the polling division, and having a qualified voter from the same polling division vouch for their eligibility. In 2011, approximately 120,000 citizens relied on the vouching provision in order to vote. By eliminating vouching, the Fair Elections Act would disenfranchise many of these citizens.”

The Harper government currently points to the Neufeld Report on Compliance Review, which suggests ‘irregularities’ can occur in vouching cases, as justification for ridding the system of VICs. But, the professors point out, the Neufeld Report “did not cite a single case of fraudulent or ineligible voting arising from the vouching system. To the contrary, the Report recommended keeping the vouching system in place as a protection for citizens’ right to vote, while working to reduce the need for vouching through enhanced use of the very VICs that Bill C-23 would disqualify.”

2. Fair elections

In addition the group expressed concern the Bill would limit Elections Canada in its capacity to protect fair elections by eliminating the enforcement arm of the agency. Rather than leave oversight to the Commissioner of Elections, the Bill would transfer the duty to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a move that would sever the link between the Commissioner and Parliament.

The proposed Bill would also significantly weaken the powers of the Commissioner to, for example, compel witness testimony, or demand receipts and other documentation from political parties. The Commissioner’s authority in these matters is crucial to investigations, like the one conducted following the robocall voter suppression scandal.

“Bizarrely, the Bill forbids Elections Canada from promoting democratic participation and voting through 'get out the vote' campaigns. Elections Canada would even be prevented from publishing its research reports on the electoral process. This gag on Elections Canada would make Canada an outlier among liberal democracies, instead of the global leader it now is.”

3. Campaign finance

The changes proposed in the Fair Elections Act will have negative implications for the role of money in politics, the group says. By increasing caps on private donations, the bill creates “a bias in favour of those with more personal wealth.”

The Bill will also discount fundraising when considering campaign costs, but only for funds raised from previous donors who gave more than $20. This is to the detriment of small donors, says the group, and advantages those parties with larger donor lists.

“Allowing money to influence electoral outcomes stands at stark odds with principles of political equality and democratic fairness. In contrast to our neighbour to the south, Canada has consistently recognized that allowing money into the political arena prevents those without financial backing from being heard and discourages participation when citizens perceive that the playing field of politics tilts toward wealth. This feature of Canadian democracy deserves strong protection, not erosion of the sort introduced by Bill C-23.”

4. Partisan activity at polling stations

Elections Canada is responsible for overseeing election activities at polling stations across the country. Bill C-23 would require Elections Canada to admit poll supervisors appointed by political parties, rather than officers appointed on merit.

As the Neufeld Report states “appointing elections officers on any basis other than merit is inconsistent with the principle of administrative neutrality, and contrary to predominant Canadian values [and] established international electoral practices.”

Although there is some allowance for party or candidate-appointed polling officers, the group of professors argues we should be reducing, rather than expanding, their numbers.

In conclusion, the group writes:

“Elections Canada reports to Parliament, not the government of the day. This is important because the rules governing elections have special significance in a democracy. The legitimacy of the entire political system depends on the fair and impartial administration of electoral procedures. It is vital that the rules of democracy be debated in an open and transparent way, shielded from partisan calculations.

Canadian citizens’ trust in the democratic process relies heavily on Elections Canada as the institution that ensures the fair and impartial administration and enforcement of our electoral laws. Full consideration of its advice and experience is vital to the legitimacy of any major changes to those laws. Especially in view of the sensitive political climate in which allegations of electoral fraud remain unresolved, both prudence and fair play demand that the Bill’s proposed changes to the laws of our democracy receive full parliamentary and public debate.”

Signatories:

Monique Deveaux, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph

Melissa Williams, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Maxwell Cameron, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Yasmin Dawood, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Patti Tamara Lenard, Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Arash Abizadeh, Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Cameron Anderson, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario

Christopher G. Anderson, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University

Lesley Andres, Professor of Education, University of British Columbia

Caroline Andrew, Professor, Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Barbara Arneil, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Yildiz Atasoy, Professor of Sociology, Simon Fraser University

Chloë G. K. Atkins, Associate Professor of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary

Michael Atkinson, Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Gerald Baier, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Ryan Balot, Professor of Political Science and Classics, University of Toronto

Keith Banting, Professor of Political Studies, Queen’s University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Sylvia Bashevkin, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Ronald Beiner, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Davina Bhandar, Associate Professor of Canadian Studies, Trent University

Laurence Bheher, Associate Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Antoine Bilodeau, Associate Professor of Political Science, Concordia University

André Blais, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Charles Blattberg, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Pierre Bosset, Professor of Public Law, Université du Québec à Montréal

Sophie Bourgault, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Leah Bradshaw, Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Penny Bryden, Professor of History, University of Victoria

Gillian Calder, Associate Professor of Law, University of Victoria

David Cameron, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Joseph Carens, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Don Carmichael, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Paul R. Carr, Associate Professor of Sociology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Lakehead University

R. Kenneth Carty, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Julián Castro-Rea, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Simone Chambers, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Mary Chapman, Associate Professor of English, University of British Columbia

Ryoa Chung, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Université de Montréal

Colin Coates, Professor of Canadian Studies, York University

Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

John Courtney, Professor of Political Science, University of Saskatchewan, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Hugo Cyr, Professor of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal

Rita Dhamoon, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

Alexandra Dobrowolsky, Professor of Political Science, Saint Mary’s University

Stefan Dolgert, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Mathieu Doucet, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo

Janique Dubois, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Pascale Dufour, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Avigail Eisenberg, Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

Lynda Erickson, Professor Emerita of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Patrick Fafard, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Katherine Fierlbeck, Professor of Political Science, Dalhousie University

Craig Forcese, Associate Professor of Law, University of Ottawa

Cristie Ford, Associate Professor of Law, University of British Columbia

Andrea Geiger, Associate Professor of History, Simon Fraser University

Elisabeth Gidengil, Professor of Political Science, McGill University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Pablo Gilabert, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Concordia University

Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant, Associate Professor Political Studies, Queen’s University

Joyce Green, Professor of Political Science, University of Regina

Rodney Haddow, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Blayne Haggart, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Marc Hanvelt, Adjunct Research Professor of Political Science, Carleton University

Lois Harder, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Kathryn Harrison, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Matthew Hayday, Associate Professor of History, University of Guelph

Andrew Heard, Associate Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Joseph Heath, Professor of Philosophy and School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto

Matthew James, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

Laura Janara, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Nancy Janovicek, Associate Professor of History, University of Calgary

Leslie Jeffrey, Professor of History and Politics, University of New Brunswick, Saint John

Candace Johnson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Guelph University

Rebecca Johnson, Professor of Law, University of Victoria

Richard Johnston, Professor of Political Science, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Luc Juillet, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Darlene Juschka, Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Women’s Studies, University of Regina

David Kahane, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Willeen Keough, Associate Professor of History, Simon Fraser University

Loren King, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University

Rebecca Kingston, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

David Laycock, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Patrick Leblond, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Jean Leclair, Professor of Law, Université de Montréal

Lawrence Leduc, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto

Theresa Lee, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Guelph

Rémi Léger, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Hester Lessard, Professor of Law, University of Victoria

Dominique Leydet, Professor of Philosophy, Université du Québec à Montréal

James Lightbody, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Mary Liston, Assistant Professor of Law, University of British Columbia

Catherine Lu, Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Audrey Macklin, Professor and Chair in Human Rights Law, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Colin Macleod, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Law, University of Victoria

Jocelyn Maclure, Professor of Philosophy, Université Laval

Patricia Marino, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo

John McGarry, Professor of Political Science, Queen’s University

Michael McGregor, Assistant Professor of Politics and International Studies, Bishop’s University

Loralea Michaelis, Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations, Mount Allison University

Éric Montpetit, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Margaret Moore, Professor of Political Studies, Queen’s University

Suzanne Morton, Professor of History and Classical Studies, McGill University

Catherine Murray, Professor of Communication, Simon Fraser University

Christian Nadeau, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Université de Montréal

James Naylor, Associate Professor of History, Brandon University

Jennifer Nedelsky, Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Toronto

Carmen J. Nielson, Associate Professor of History, Mount Royal University

Geneviève Nootens, Professor of Social Sciences, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi

Nancy Olewiler, Professor of Public Policy, Simon Fraser University

Brenda O’Neill, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Michael Orsini, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Martin Papillon, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Steve Patten, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Omid Payrow Shabani, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph

Dennis Pilon, Associate Professor of Political Science, York University

Florence Piron, Professor of Information and Communication, Université Laval

Pablo Policzer, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Philip Resnick, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Kent Roach, Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Douglas A. Ross, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Jason Roy, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University

Claudia Ruitenberg, Associate Professor of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia

Peter Russell, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Paul Saurette, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Carol Schick, Associate Professor of Education, University of Regina

David Schneiderman, Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Christa Scholtz, Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Richard Schultz, Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Leslie Seidle, research director, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Ozlem Sensoy, Associate Professor of Education, Simon Fraser University

Grace Skogstad, Professor of Political Science, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Harry Smalier, Associate Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Education, York University

David E. Smith, Distinguished Visiting Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Jennifer Smith, Professor Emerita of Political Science, Dalhousie University

Miriam Smith, Professor of Law and Society, York University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Patrick Smith, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Robert Sparling, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Mark Spooner, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Regina

Maxime St-Hilaire, Assistant Professor of Law, Université de Sherbrooke

Christine Straehle, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Veronica Strong-Boag, Professor Emerita, Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice/Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, and Past President, Canadian Historical Association

Lisa Taylor, Professor of Education, Bishop’s University

Melanee Thomas, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Reeta Tremblay, Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

James Tully, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Law, Indigenous Governance and Philosophy, University of Victoria

Luc Turgeon, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Patrick Turmel, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Université Laval

Ian Urquhart, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Robert Vipond, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Jennifer Wallner, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Jeremy Webber, Dean of Law, University of Victoria

Mark Warren, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Lorraine E. Weinrib, Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Daniel Weinstock, Professor of Law, McGill University

Steven Weldon, Associate Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Graham White, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto at Mississauga, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Lisa Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Margot Young, Professor of Law, University of British Columbia

Robert Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Full text of the letter available on the National Post.

Image Credit: ItzaFineDay via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.