Harper's new hand picked Elections Commissioer rules in Harper's favour

Elections Commissioner won't investigate US political consultant for hitting the 2011 campaign hustings with two Conservative candidates

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/07/elections-commissioner-wont-investigate-us-political-consultant-for-hitting-the-2011-campaign-hustin.html 

by Kady O'Malley Posted: July 12, 2012 10:53 AM Last Updated: July 12, 2012 11:31 AM Read 7comments7

So, remember how I was briefly - and not particularly quietly - driven mad earlier this spring while attempting to determine, once and for all, if it was legal for American political tourists -- specifically, staffers with US-based election consulting firms looking to drum up business in Canada -- to hit the election hustings on behalf of Canadian candidates?

For those who missed that journey into labyrinth of election law, you can read all about it here and here, but to make a very long and exquisitely frustrating shaggy dog story short, the eventual answer was that no one, including Elections Canada, seemed to know for sure.

Well, it turns out that an as yet identified someone went a step further, and filed a formal complaint  with the Office of the Commissioner of Elections (OCE), in which he or she alleged that Matthew Parker , the CEO of US-based political consulting firm Front Porch Strategies may have violated the existing Canada Elections Act prohibition against "inducement" of voters by "foreigners" during a brief spurt of canvassing -- by phone and door-to-door -- on behalf of Conservative candidates Julian Fantino and Rick Dykstra during the last federal election.

Earlier today, Democracy Watch released the OEC response  on behalf of the still anonymous complainant, in which the commissioner concluded that it would not serve the public interest to pursue the matter further.

Unpersuaded, it seems, by the "internet information" provided in support of the claim -- online photos of Parker toiling in a phone bank at Fantino HQ, and a subsequent tweet in which he stated that he was "knocking on doors" with Dykstra in St. Catharine's -- the OCE concluded that the contested activity "was of very limited duration, and suggests that the purpose of the individuals' presence in Canada may have been partly or primarily to promote their business interests."

(Dykstra's 2011 election expense return lists a $947.90 payment to Front Porch for "miscellaneous services." There is no record of any payment to the firm by the Fantino campaign.)

In addition, it notes that "some of the relevant information or persons are not within Canada," which could make it difficult to "successfully investigate and enforce."

Finally - and perhaps most crucially - there is "no basis to believe that any elector was actually induced or affected in their voting behaviour" by the contested activity.

Not surprisingly, Democracy Watch is unimpressed with the decision not to investigate the matter , which it describes as "legally incorrect" and overly narrow in its interpretation of the law, and warns that it "indicates clearly that the Commissioner will likely never prosecute a foreigner for illegal influence of voters in Canadian federal elections."

Then again, as I pointed out in this post on the somewhat murky origins of the provision in question, it remains very much unclear whether Parliament -- or, at least, the parliamentarians who gave the current Act its most recent thorough legislative airing out in 1999 -- ever intended to declare the campaign trail off-limits to foreigners -- and don't even get me started on the seemingly infinite interpretations of the word "inducement," which is not defined in the Act.

In any case, should our current crop of politicians want to tighten the rules to keep out foreign electoral interlopers, it would seem easy enough to amend the law to make it crystal clear what is, and isn't, permitted. Until then, however, one can hardly fault the elections commissioner from declining to wade into the fray.

Here's the full text of the response:

This is in response to your complaint to Elections Canada in which you describe internet information indicating that two individuals associated with a business called Front Porch Strategies engaged in canvassing for one or more candidates in the May, 2011 federal general election.  Your complaint alleges a contravention of section 331 of the Canada Elections Act.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Commissioner.

Offences related to influencing electors' voting decisions are difficult to successfully investigate and enforce.  In this case, an additional factor is that some of the relevant information or persons are not within Canada.  These considerations affect the Commissioner's assessment of your information and the public interest in taking enforcement action.

The information described in your complaint, found on internet sites or news stories, indicates that the activity complained of was of very limited duration, and suggests that the purpose of the individuals' presence in Canada may have been partly or primarily to promote their business interests.  No complaint to this office provided a basis to believe that any elector was actually induced or affected in their voting behaviour due to the activity complained of.

It is the Commissioner's view that, taking into account these considerations, it is not in the public interest to pursue this matter.

Note: As submitted to, and released by Democracy Watch, the original complaint refers only to Parker, but throughout its response, the OEC uses the plural. For the record, there were, indeed, two Front Porch staffers on the ground in Canada -- Parker and his partner, P.J Wenzel -- but for reasons known only to the anonymous complainant, only one was named in the initial filing.

Death of evidence? Did you hear the one about Flaherty's false allegation about tax leakage caused by income trusts?

Zero evidence to support that patently false claim apart from Flaherty's 18 pages of blacked out documents that were subsequently recalled.

Meanwhile the evidence against Flaherty''s false claim was irrefutable starting with the work of Dennis Bruce of HLB Decision Economics, and substantiated by BMO, RBC, CIBC,  PwC etc., etc.

The "Death of Evidence" began in 2006 with the taxation of income trusts, blindly supported by Jack Layton's NDP.

Scientists rally on Parliament Hill to mourn 'death of evidence'

By Janet Davison, CBC News

Posted: Jul 9, 2012 

Canadian scientists aren't normally among the placard-waving crowd on Parliament Hill.
But today in Ottawa, scientists invoking an image of the Grim Reaper will take on the Stephen Harper government for what they call the "death of evidence" brought about by federal cuts to everything from the long-form census to closure of the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory in Nunavut.

'It definitely seems to us these cuts are not just part of fighting the deficit.'—Katie Gibbs

"Scientists are generally not agitators, but this continuous set of decisions has got very many scientists hot under the collar," says Scott Findlay, a rally organizer and University of Ottawa ecology professor.
Findlay says the scientific community is getting increasingly distressed by what appears to be a deliberate federal government campaign to reduce the capacity of federal institutions to collect evidence and bring it forward.
Those behind today's event — which invites people to come wearing lab coats or dressed in black — say it's important for Canadians to understand the impact of these recent government decisions.
"It definitely seems to us these cuts are not just part of fighting the deficit, that there is a systematic attack on science and the preferential cutting of programs that may produce results not in line with the Conservative agenda," says Katie Gibbs, a PhD student at the University of Ottawa and one of the organizers of the rally.

"But we feel that most Canadians regardless of their values or beliefs think that policies should be made based on evidence and based on facts, and that regardless of the decisions that the government decides to make, our democracy depends on an informed public."
For its part, the government has stood firmly behind its cost-cutting decisions, pointing to the need to reduce the deficit. It also argues that the changes it is making will boost efficiency and notes that it is making what it says is a $1.1 billion "investment" is in research, development and innovation over the next five years.
In 2010-11, federal government spending on science and technology came to $11.7 billion a year, Statistics Canada reported. But what it will be after this fiscal year is unclear.
A request Monday for comment on the scientists' rally and concerns was referred to the office of Gary Goodyear, the minister of state for science and technology.
In an emailed statement, Goodyear said the government has made "historic investments in science, technology and research to create jobs, grow our economy and improve the quality of life for Canadians."
"Budget 2012 enhanced federal government support for leading-edge research including $500 million — over five years – for the Canada Foundation for Innovation."
Funding in the budget included:

• $17 million over two years to develop alternatives to existing isotope production.
• $105 million over two years for forestry innovation and market development.
• $60 million for Genome Canada to start a human health research competition, and to sustain the Science and Technology Centres until 2014-15.
• $10 million over two years for the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research to link Canadians to global research networks.

The government said it has an excellent track record for basic research, but that Canada has lagged behind peer nations on applied research and commercialization. The government says it's moving to correct that, but not at the expense of basic research.
While scientists have been concerned about government decisions and cuts dating back to 2006, Gibbs says the government's omnibus bill, C-38, and the changes it contained on everything from the Fisheries Act to environmental assessments, was the "final straw" leading to today's rally.
Examples of decisions that have sparked concern for scientists include:

Long-form census

In 2010, the government moved to cut the mandatory long-form census, while retaining the voluntary long-form census.

Departmental cuts

Budget cuts have hit research at Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Library and Archives Canada, the National Research Council Canada, Statistics Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Experimental Lakes Area

The government is closing the Experimental Lakes Area, a world-renowned research facility in northwestern Ontario.
(Gibbs says studies done there came to conclusions that differred from research done in labs. "On acid rain, they found that the acidity was toxic to fish at a much lower level than had been found in the laboratory studies and that did end up influencing the policy decisions.")

PEARL

The government ended its funding that supported the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Laboratory in Eureka, Nunavut.
Organizers of today's rally also see a strategy on the part of Prime Minister Harper "to impede the bringing forward of scientific evidence into the public debate." Examples they cite include:

• The 2008 decision to not renew the national science adviser.
• Limiting access to federal government scientists, which some have called "muzzling" and which has drawn international attention
• Ending the National Roundtable on the Environment.

Gibbs and Findlay acknowledge the dire tone around today's rally, with its title, Death of Evidence, and the image of a Grim Reaper. But Gibbs argues that the sentiment is fitting.
"Unfortunately, things are that bad that a Grim Reaper is an appropriate sort of mascot for this rally."
But she wants there to be room for some optimism, too. "You still have to leave some hope that if the public gets engaged and gets informed, that we can turn this around."