Skip to main content

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday February 28, 2012. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

Adrian Wyld/THE CANADIAN PRESS

On Monday, we criticized the Harper government's Fair Elections Act's unnecessary provisions that would make it more difficult for voters to register at the polls. There are several other troubling aspects to the legislation, which we will be examining over the course of this week. Today: an entirely uncalled-for amendment that would allow a political party to exclude from its campaign expenses the cost of raising funds from previous donors. The clause raises giant red flags. It's based on no democratic principle that we can identify. It seems designed to promote political advantage rather than electoral fairness.

The Conservative Party has the largest and deepest list of past donors. A rule treating the cost of outreach to potential new donors as a campaign expense, but exempting from campaign spending limits the cost of contacting previous donors, would give the Conservatives an obvious advantage over their opponents. Note that this amendment has been included in legislation that is intended to be passed in time for next year's general election.

Critics, including Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer, are also concerned that it will be impossible to ensure that calls to previous donors don't also include requests to volunteer for the party, put up a lawn sign or get out the vote. It could be an easy way to transform election expenses limited by law into election expenses not limited by law.

Story continues below advertisement

Pierre Poilievre, the Minister for Democratic Reform, has dismissed both criticisms by saying "the number of donors a party has is a tiny fraction of the number of supporters it has," and furthermore, "the parties would be calling the people ... least likely to miss voting day, they're obviously civically engaged enough."

Translation: There would be no point to cheating, so why would anyone bother? This is not generally a good way to design airtight legislation regarding election-campaign expenses. In fact, the amendment seems less about reforming democracy or making elections fair, than it does about helping parties squeeze every last drop out of their expense limits.

There is an easy and obvious fix: Ditch this clause of the Fair Elections Act. It looks like a partisan loophole – pretty much the last thing our democracy needs.

Tomorrow, we'll take a look at two more wrong-headed elements of the bill, including a provision giving parties the power to name thousands of poll supervisors – election workers who are supposed to be non-partisan.

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