The Conservatives call it the Fair Elections Act. Readers, print and digital, are overwhelmingly convinced that there's little fair about it – starting with the title
............................................................................................................................................
Nothing in this act is necessary. It is very suspicious that it is being tabled at a time when the government's approval rating is at an all-time low.
Hans Klohn, Toronto
.........
When 19 professors from six countries say the Fair Elections Act "would prove to be deeply damaging for electoral integrity within Canada," we should pay attention and reflect (Scholars Denounce Proposed Elections Act – March 19). Prime Minister Stephen Harper's track record in this regard is very disturbing.
Heather and Peter Black, Ottawa
.........
Great idea to make sure no vote-stealing goes on as it has done in the U.S., thanks to the Obama "organizers." You can only vote once, and you have to have valid ID. End of story. If you have to rely on advertising to get people to vote, you've got a big problem to begin with – ignorance.
Darren Alexander, White Rock, B.C.
.........
The Fair Elections Act not only proposes unnecessary new voter-ID requirements (which will make it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of people to vote), it also unfairly: hikes already too high donation limits; increases the bias of election workers; keeps election watchdogs secretive and unaccountable; creates a secret hole for increased, unaccountable campaign spending by political parties; restricts pre-election advertising spending by interest groups (but not by parties); keeps penalties for violations too low; fails to make false election promises illegal and, overall, keeps the voting system undemocratic.
If at least some key changes aren't made to the act, voters across Canada will be concerned, and fairly so, that the Conservatives aren't playing fair.
Duff Conacher, board member, Democracy Watch
.........
Even more telling than your excellent series of five editorials on the Subversion of Democracy Act – if the government can use Orwellian language, so can I – was the letter to the editor from Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre, in which he justified the legislation on the basis that it apes the activities of political parties in leadership races, and that it creates a new privileged class of Canadian, the "past supporters" of political parties (And The 'Fair' Bit? – March 14).
It appears the government believes political parties need to be protected from the electorate, as represented by the impartial public servants of Elections Canada.
However, the minister does not address the need of the electorate to be protected from the machinations of political parties by that same impartial arbiter. As the resident of a household graced by a robocall directing a voter to a non-existent polling location in the last federal election, this seems like a gaping hole to me.
James Allen, Victoria
.........
Show your I.D. to vote instead of someone vouching for you? Sounds fair to me. Stop the fraud.
Joyce Fenez-Reynolds, Oakville, Ont.
.........
Perhaps if widespread consultations were taking place within Canada, those in the international community would not feel it necessary to weigh in with their concerns about the message that Canada may be sending to other democracies by eroding voting rights and increasing the role of money in politics. Still, given that broad consultations are not taking place, we owe a debt of gratitude to those outside the country who are speaking out and, hopefully, causing our government to think twice about the path it is heading down.
Sukanya Pillay, executive director, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
.........
The Fair Elections Act is a shameful piece of legislation that makes Stephen Harper's trip to the Ukraine almost comical. The Canadian government pretends to support democracy everywhere else even as it subverts it at home.
Tony Fricke, Calgary
.........
The Democratic Reform Minister defends the proposed Fair Elections Act's exempting fundraising expenses from campaign spending limits by pointing out that without the exemption, Canadian taxpayers would be required to reimburse political parties for 50 per cent of these expenses.
Has he forgotten, in the process of drafting these changes to the law, that he is drafting changes to the law? The very law which determines which expenses are capped and which ones are reimbursed?
Tom Cantine, Edmonton
.........
Pierre Poilievre wants deputy returning officers to be appointed by the winning party. He poisons the chalice further by giving those partisan appointees custody, until election day, of all ballots cast in advance polls. I feel I can no longer safely vote in advance polls. As a Canadian, I have never before felt the need to protect my vote from the tainted touch of a federal government.
Mr. Poilievre would remove prosecution of broken election laws from the Chief Electoral Officer's authority, claiming "the referee should not be wearing a team shirt" – an unsubstantiated smear against electoral officials' impartiality. Yet, with the same hand, he want Canadians to accept hundreds of partisan appointees to supervise and safeguard our votes.
Penny Gill, Dundas, Ont.
.........
The Harper crowd should call this the Keep the Conservatives in Power Act, presented by the Minister for Undemocractic Reform. At least that would be honest.
Dinah Whalen, Toronto
.........
When Stephen Harper wants the winning party in a riding to nominate central poll supervisors, Canadians should ask: To what end, except to override democracy with ideology?
Andrew Wainwright, Halifax
.........................................................................................................................................................
ON REFLECTION Letters to the editor
Great day for democracy
Re Supreme Court Rejects Harper Appointee Marc Nadon (online, March 21): So often we have had to watch the Harper government ride roughshod over those who disagree with its dismissive attitude to our democratic institutions, not least its disrespect for Parliament.
How heartening then to see the Supreme Court stand up to the Prime Minister and at the same reaffirm Quebec's special place in Canada. What a great day for democracy in Canada.
Next up: the Fair Elections Act.
Jill Hall, Toronto
.........
He made the right call
Many of those who are saying so long to Jim Flaherty are citing his decision on income trusts as a source for their contempt (So Long, Mr. Flaherty – letters, March 21).
Any unbiased assessment will conclude that, as the finance minister, he made the correct decision. I completely sympathize with those who lost money in the market as a result, however, it was market forces that created the problem and it happened quickly.
He really had no choice but to act as he did: in the best interest of all Canadians.
Mike Ford, Whitby, Ont.
.........
Redford is Alberta's loss
Albertans have lost the most intelligent, statesman-like leader since Peter Lougheed.
Alison Redford put teachers back into classrooms, got the economy on track and represented Albertans brilliantly on the world stage. She had vision and guts, but what she didn't have is enough support from those around her.
While we decry bullying in our schools, we apparently encourage it in our legislature.
V.C. Lefebvre, Edmonton
.........
Breastfeeding's place
Re Stop Feeling So Guilty (Life, March 21): Parents worldwide and in all socioeconomic groups want what's best for their children and will go to great lengths to pursue this goal. In that light, it's clear that breastfeeding confers benefits to numerous aspects of infant/child health that should not be downplayed in a misguided effort to reduce guilt.
Breastfeeding also has compelling benefits for the mother, including risk reduction for breast and ovarian cancer.
It should be gently encouraged and supported by all.
Paul Thiessen, MD, Vancouver