The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Before you click away, we have something to ask you…

Do you value independent journalism that focuses on the issues that matter? Do you think Canada needs more in-depth, fact-based reporting? So do we. If you’d like to be part of the solution, we’d love it if you joined us in working on it.

The Tyee is an independent, paywall-free, reader-funded publication. While many other newsrooms are getting smaller or shutting down altogether, we’re bucking the trend and growing, while still keeping our articles free and open for everyone to read.

The reason why we’re able to grow and do more, and focus on quality reporting, is because our readers support us in doing that. Over 5,000 Tyee readers chip in to fund our newsroom on a monthly basis, and that supports our rockstar team of dedicated journalists.

Join a community of people who are helping to build a better journalism ecosystem. You pick the amount you’d like to contribute on a monthly basis, and you can cancel any time.

Help us make Canadian media better by joining Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
We're reader supported.
Get our newsletter free.
Help pay for our reporting.

Federal Elections Fair? Why We Can't Know

Elections Canada makes one public ruling, hides more than 2,284 others since 2004.

By Duff Conacher 16 Nov 2011 |

Duff Conacher is the founding director of Democracy Watch, Canada's leading democratic reform organization.

image atom
Public has right to know results of investigations into election complaints.

Fair elections are a cornerstone of democracy, and part of what Canada's veterans fought to guarantee in past wars. But here we are, 144 years since Canada became a so-called democracy, and no one can tell whether Elections Canada is enforcing the federal election law fairly and properly.

Democracy Watch's recently completed analysis of Elections Canada's enforcement of the Canada Elections Act since 2004 has revealed that it has failed to report details of how it has investigated and ruled on 2,284 complaints it received about violations of the Act during elections, and likely many other complaints it received in between elections.

Last week, Crown prosecutors, acting on behalf of Elections Canada, cut a deal with the federal Conservatives to end the court case against Conservative senators, party officials and the Conservative Party over the party's advertising spending scheme in the 2006 election. That case is public because charges were filed, and the party pleaded guilty in the deal and paid the maximum fine, while the charges against the senators and officials were dropped.

Failure to enforce, or even ask

Prosecutors should have pursued the case against the senators and officials, as there was a likelihood of conviction given the evidence that they knew what they were doing and knew there were serious issues about whether it could be done legally.

At least the public can form its own opinion about the situation, because what Elections Canada has done in investigating and pursuing the case is public -- but with the 2,284 other complaint situations, no one knows what Elections Canada has done.

Unfortunately, this is not an unusual situation. Because of the failure of MPs to ask key questions, and the failures of the heads of various federal good government watchdog agencies, former federal Integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet hid her negligently weak enforcement record from 2007 to 2010, as did federal Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd from 2007 to spring 2011 (and her predecessor Michael Nelson from 2004 to 2007). And, federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson continues to hide details about her dangerously weak enforcement record, because MPs continue to fail to ask her key questions.

In a letter dated Feb. 16, 2011 sent to the chairs of six House committees and other key Senate, Privy Council and Cabinet officials, seven Officers of Parliament (including Elections Canada's Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, but not including Ethics Commissioner Dawson) urged House and Senate committees to watch them more closely to ensure they are doing their jobs properly.

However, in recent House committee hearings at which the chief electoral officer, ethics commissioner, and commissioner of lobbying have appeared, MPs have again failed to ask them key questions about how and whether they are doing their jobs properly.

Give us the details

Elections Canada claims that it has resolved many of the 2,284 election complaints, but the public has a right to know the details of when, how and why each complaint was resolved. To date, Elections Canada has disclosed the details of the resolution of only 53 situations since 2004. It has not even disclosed the number of complaints it has received each year in between elections, and there are an additional 1,874 complaints about which only a vague summary has been disclosed.

The details about the 2,284 election complaints and other complaints may reveal that Elections Canada is investigating and ruling on every complaint fairly and effectively, and in a timely way -- or it may reveal that Elections Canada is acting in biased, unfair ways that negatively affect the outcome of elections and/or the reputations of only certain politicians and party officials.

The same is true with the other key democratic, good government watchdog agencies -- if we don't know the details about how they are ruling on each complaint, we can't know if they are acting fairly.

Hopefully, MPs will hold soon hearings and request details so that Elections Canada's actual enforcement record over the past seven years will be revealed for public scrutiny. And hopefully MPs will soon change their past practices, and consistently and regularly hold hearings at which they ask the questions to get the information needed to ensure all the federal good government watchdog agencies are doing their jobs well and properly.

But the real, much-needed solution is to change the laws that regulate all these good government watchdog agencies to require disclosure of this key information that the public has a right to know.

[Tags: Politics, Rights and Justice.]  [Tyee]

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free


The Barometer

Tyee Poll: What Coverage Would You Like to See More of This Year?

Take this week's poll