Skip to main content

Minister of State (Democratic Reform) Pierre Poilievre speaks with the media following a decision by the Supreme Court on the Senate in Ottawa on Friday, April 25, 2014.

Adrian Wyld/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The Conservative government is backtracking on some of the most controversial aspects of its elections bill, trashing or amending certain aspects that for months drew fierce criticism and parliamentary debate, even within the Tory camp.

The opposition is hailing the changes, announced Friday, as a "climbdown."

(What is the Fair Elections Act? Read The Globe and Mail's easy explanation.)

Story continues below advertisement

The government walked away from a provision allowing a riding's incumbent party to choose poll supervisors, a restriction on what the chief electoral officer can say in public, a ban on Elections Canada participating in school programs and an expense exemption that critics said was a blatant attempt to stack the deck in the Conservatives' favour.

The changes also include a compromise on vouching and on retaining robocall and call-centre records.

"What we've heard from the minister today is a very welcome set of concessions," said NDP democratic reform critic Craig Scott. "It is a climbdown, but that's what we were hoping for."

When it comes to one of the key tenets of the proposed Fair Elections Act – requiring all voters to produce identification proving who they are before voting – Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre said the government absolutely will not budge. But if voters have ID saying who they are but not where they live, the changed act will require them to sign a written oath of residence.

Mr. Poilievre also stuck to the Conservatives' decision not to equip the commissioner of elections with the power to compel witness testimony when investigating electoral fraud. He also maintained that parties – and not Elections Canada – should be allowed to appoint deputy returning officers and poll clerks.

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, Mr. Poilievre defended the Fair Elections Act as "terrific the way it is," saying the changes will only further improve the proposed legislation. "Some individuals are going to be against the bill, regardless of the amendments," he said. "That's life."

The NDP called Friday's announcement a "partial and provisional victory," though it promised to continue fighting for more substantial changes. The Liberals said the government only tweaked a bill it should have wholly revamped. The Assembly of First Nations expressed tentative optimism on the residency oaths, but pledged to look at the amendments closely. The Council of Canadians, meanwhile, said the bill should still be withdrawn completely.

Story continues below advertisement

The proposed changes include:

  • Allowing a voter whose ID doesn’t list an address, or lists an outdated address, to sign an oath of residence (another voter, with fully proven ID, would then have to co-sign the oath);
  • Abolishing a provision that would have exempted the cost of mail and phone calls to past donors from the election spending cap;
  • Amendments to ensure the chief electoral officer knows he has the freedom to speak or report on any matter (he can say “anything he wants,” Mr. Poilievre said);
  • Maintaining Elections Canada’s discretion in appointing central poll supervisors;
  • Requiring robocall firms and call-centre companies to retain their audio recordings and scripts for three years, rather than one;
  • Allowing Elections Canada to support programs that explain voting to primary and secondary school students.

Assembly of First Nations chief executive officer Peter Dinsdale said residency vouching is better than no vouching at all, since it would mean, for example, that an aboriginal with a status Indian card, which doesn't list an address, could present that ID and then sign an oath.

Mr. Poilievre said the amendments have been submitted to the parliamentary committee studying the Fair Elections Act.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter