Fair elections are a cornerstone of democracy. But here we are, 144 years after Canada became a democratic country, and nobody can tell or elections Canada is enforcement of the law of the federal elections fair and correct.
Democracy Watch recently analyzed elections Canada's enforcement of the electoral law Canada since 2004. Analysis our during this time, , shows that elections Canada has received complaints about violations of the law 2,284 (during, and between, elections), who did not report on. Details of how it has examined and ruled on these issues has not been released.
In fact, the more than 2,300 complaints that elections Canada has received since 2004, has the only 53resolution details revealed. Besides, it has not received the number of complaints each year between elections, published 1,874 complaints and there are an additional only ever about a vague summary is published.
Last week, Crown prosecutors (acting on behalf of elections Canada) cut a deal with the lawsuit Federal conservatives finally against conservative senators, party officials, and the Conservative Party about the party advertising-spending regime in the 2006election. That case after all public charges were filed. The party pleaded guilty in the deal and paid the maximum fine, while the accusations against the senators and officials were dropped. Officers of Justice the case against the senators and officials would evidence must have pursued: having regard to the Government that officials knew what they were doing, and knew that there were serious questions about whether the legal can be done, there was a likelihood of conviction.
In this case, at least the public his own opinion about the situation, since the actions that elections Canada has taken in the investigation and pursuit of the case has been made public. With the 2,284 other complaints nobody knows what elections Canada has done.
Unfortunately, this lack of transparency is not uncommon. For example, former Federal integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet was able to enforcement to hide her negligently weak from 2007 to 2010, and Karen Shepherd former Federal Commissioner of lobbying did for year 2011same from 2007. (Shepherd's predecessor, Michael Nelson, was no exception). Moreover, Federal conflict of interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson hide enforcementof details about her dangerously weak. All this is made possible by the fact that MPs fail to important questions, and by the failures of the heads of the various federal "good" watchdog public institutions.
Letter In a (from 16 February 2011) sent to the chairs of six House committees and other important Senate, Privy Council, and Cabinet officials, seven officers of the Parliament (including elections Canada's Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, but not including Ethics Commissioner Dawson) urged House and Senate committees to look at the Chief Electoral Commissioner, ethics and Commissioner of lobbying more closely to ensure that they do their job properly. Unfortunately, they can't seem to get the message, such as they are still not important questions House Committee meetings.
Claims that it has solved Canada elections many of the complaints cited election 2,284. This can be, but the public has a right to know the details of when, how and why each complaint was resolved. These details can reveal that elections Canada investigates and ruling on every complaint fairly and effectively, and in a timely manner-or can reveal that Canada elections occurs on a biased, unfair way that negative impact on the outcome of elections and/or the reputation of certain politicians and officials of the party.
It is important that the public should have access to this information. The same goes with the other major democratic, "good governance" watchdog agencies – if we do not know the details about how they are ruling on every complaint, we cannot know if they are free.
MPs must demand that elections Canada's actual enforcement in the past seven years will be available for public scrutiny, and must begin hold regular hearings to ensure that public authorities watchdog work effectively.
A more ambitious – but no less necessary solution is changing the laws that "good governance" watchdog agencies, so they required for this kind of information – information that the public has the right to know.
Photo courtesy of Reuters.
No comments:
Post a Comment