Election laws give Canada U.S. tinge

There were two news items on Friday that, taken together, suggest the election that takes place Oct. 19 will differ from earlier elections because of the Conservatives’ new rules.

The first was a story in the Globe and Mail, in which unnamed Conservatives indicated that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not make his traditional summer trip to the Arctic, so that he can campaign across the country, beginning after the first scheduled debate Aug. 6.

That followed a John Ivison column in the National Post on Thursday, suggesting the Conservatives have “a cunning plan to extend the campaign,” which will allow them to outspend their rivals. In previous elections, there was a hard spending cap on the whole campaign regardless of its length — a maximum of $21 million in 2011, for example.

This time, the parties can spend $24 million if the campaign runs for 37 days, but if it is longer, they can spend $5 million more for every extra week, the result of changes brought in by the Conservatives in the “Fair Elections Act.”

If Harper officially launches the election on Aug. 16, for example, the spending limit would be about $44 million, which would give the Conservatives quite an advantage in the advertising war, since the other parties likely can’t come up with that much money.

Harper has been pushing for more money in politics for a long time. Back in 2000, Harper, then the president of the National Citizens Coalition, challenged the Elections Act, arguing that restrictions the Liberals brought in on third-party advertising were a violation of Charter rights to freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court ruled against him, finding that a sufficiently well-funded group could “dominate the political discourse, depriving their opponents of a reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard, and undermining the voter’s ability to be adequately informed of all views.” Therefore, the court ruled, Parliament was within its rights to limit spending to ensure “equality in the political discourse,” which “enhances the right to vote.”

Harper appears to have bided his time, waited until he had a majority and then found a way to get more money into our elections.

This provision was mostly overlooked during the debate on the new law, with opponents raising the loudest objections to new rules that will make it more difficult for some to vote.

The law now requires that every voter show ID that proves their identity and their address, which will be difficult for aboriginals, students, seniors and people who have recently moved.

On Friday, Superior Court Justice David Stinson rejected a challenge to those provisions brought by the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Federation of Students, who wanted the judge to allow Elections Canada to use voter information cards as identification.

Stinson ruled that he could not set aside the law with the election so close because “preserving public trust in the electoral process involves a balancing between enabling electors to vote and ensuring the integrity of the system.”

Stinson did rule though that “there is a risk that some individuals who would otherwise rely on the voter information card to enable them to vote will be unable to do so due to (the new law), which would result in irreparable harm due to their inability to exercise their right to vote.”

About 400,000 voters used the voter information card at the polls in the last election. This time, they won’t be able to do so, and party scrutineers will have new powers to examine the identification of voters, which could lead to delays at the polls.

It seems likely this fall’s election may resemble an American election more than previous Canadian elections have, with advertising playing a bigger role and more potential for problems at the polls.