Time to Clean House at Elections Canada

Elections Canada making its rulings up as it goes along

Following an incident at a special polling station at the University of Guelph, Elections Canada has seemingly chosen to blatantly ignore some serious violations of the Canada Elections Act.

The Conservative Party contacted Elections Canada last week after a Tory scrutineer was denied the opportunity to work at the polling station. There was also partisan campaign literature in the polling area. Both are violations of election law.

This turned out to be the least of the problems at the University of Guelph poll. When contacting Elections Canada to complain about the two violations only to be notified that the poll in question had not been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Under law, the proper course of action would have been to annul the votes cast at that poll, and call the students back to vote in a properly-authorized poll. Instead, Elections Canada validated the ballots cast, and cancelled all such special polls.

It's only the most recent in a series of episodes that casts doubt on the impartiality of the personell running Elections Canada.

There is, of course, the on-sided ruling issued by Elections Canada regarding the "in and out" scandal; one in which the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party alone, was charged over a practice that all of Canada's political parties have used.

Elections Canada would rule that the practice was different when the Tories used it, alleging that they had conspired to violate election spending rules.

Yet when Avaaz, a far-left advocacy group registered as a third party in the 2008 election, violated spending limits in three ridings during that campaign, Elections Canada looked the other way. Newspaper ads specifically identified three opposition candidates in the 2008 election, but spread the cost of the ads across numerous different ridings. Instead of spending the $3,666 per targetted riding they were allowed to under election law, they instead were able to spend $14,000 on their campaign in these three ridings.

In each case, despite the fact that the ads were specifically identified as supporting specific candidates -- the local Tory candidate in the case of the Conservative ads, and Elizabeth May, David Pratt and Mike Bocking in the case of Avaaz -- Elections Canada concluded they were national in scope and thus subject to different spending limits.

In each case, Elections Canada facilitated the decision by declining to examine the content of the ads. The rulings were entirely arbitrary.

Just as it seems that a Tory scrutineer was excluded from the University of Guelph polling station was largely arbitrary. But Elections Canada has offered no comment on this matter whatsoever, let alone have they announced how they're going to respond to the violation.

They're just letting it slide, despite the fact that the poll results ought to be invalidated.

This isn't to say that the 700 students -- actually more like 241 according to an Elections Canada spokesman -- should simply have their votes anulled. Rather, they should have the opportunity to re-cast their votes at a polling station that actually complies with the law.

Even the decision to suspend these on-campus voting stations is disappointing: there's clearly a role for these kinds of polls, provided that they comply with the law.

What is most disappointing -- and deeply disturbing -- is the fact that the people running Elections Canada seems to be making its rulings up as they go along. They have simply rendered too many rulings that are at variance with the law, and often at variance with one another.

It's time for the government to clean house at Elections Canada. The far-left will despise it, but it's the only way to ensure that Canada will remain a democracy where the rule of law reigns supreme, not the biases of those expected to enforce the law.

The Truth Unravels Anti-Sun TV Petition

As Ricken Patel and Avaaz write to RCMP and the Ottawa Police Department begging them to investigate whomever embarrassed them by revealing the lack of controls on their "Stop Fox North" petition, it's becoming increasingly clear that they aren't merely motivated by vindictiveness -- they're also motivated by a need to distract interested parties from the facts.

First up are the claims that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is exerting pressure on CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein to approve a mandatory-distribution license for Sun TV.

On CBC's Power and Politics, Ricken Patel was asked if he had proof that such pressure was being exerted.

He sputtered and stuttered his response.

"No, of course we don't have legal proof," Patel admitted.

And there's good reason for this: because no pressure seems to be present.

In a recent letter to the Globe and Mail, von Finckenstein refuted the best evidence that Patel could offer -- a column by Lawrence Martin:

"I read with consternation Lawrence Martin's column "Is Stephen Harper Set To Move Against The CRTC?" (Aug 19) calling into question the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's independence as a regulatory body. The column stems from Quebecor Media's application to launch a TV news service called Sun TV News.

I would like to categorically state that no one at any level of government has approached me about the Sun TV application, the appointment of the CRTC's vice-chair of broadcasting, or my own mandate.

Quebecor's application is being treated according to the CRTC's well-established processes. The application was published on Sept. 1 for comment, and a public hearing will be held in Gatineau, PQ, starting on Nov 19. The CRTC will then make a decision on the basis of the evidence on the public record."

Patel and Avaaz have no "legal proof" that any such pressure is being exerted because it doesn't seem to be present at all.

So the lack of pressure has already been established. But that's only for starters.

The CRTC website puts the lie to Avaaz's claim that Sun TV is seeking mandatory access to cable and satellite fees:

The information regarding the application states quite unequivocally:

"The applicant stated that it was not seeking mandatory basic distribution, but only to be made available on cable and satellite distribution undertakings, allowing the public to have access to Sun TV News without any obligation to choose it."

This particular detail demonstrates the Avaaz petition to be counter-factual. As such, Quebecor is perfectly entitled to seek legal remedy on this matter.

For Patel, however, it seems that these facts simply don't matter. Instead, he wants to simply repeat his vacuous rhetoric and try to make the issue about the cost of Quebecor's lawyers.

"This is how big corporate power tries to silence people's voices, with smear campaigns and expensive lawyers," Patel complained. "Canadians are deeply worried about the poisonous politics of the Sun media empire and will keep fighting their plan to force cable companies to give them access to our cable fees."

Patel either hasn't read the information regarding the application, available on the CRTC website since September 1, or he's underestimating the intelligence of Canadians and outright lying to them.

Fortunately, however, public consultations on Sun TV will be starting fairly soon. Ricken Patel, as a Canadian citizen, will have the option to participate.

However, he'll need to turn up with better material than "I disagree with Sun TV politically" or "Fox News is bad". Whether or not he's actually capable of better has yet to be seen.

A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

First, the set-up:

And now, the punchline:

If Avaaz really wants to use the freeping of online polls to try to advance their cause, perhaps they should pick some that are a little more methodologically sound.

Just sayin'.