Transcript Episode 30 March 30

THE WEST BLOCK

Episode 30, Season 3

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Host: Tom Clark

Guest Interviews: Harry Neufeld, Pierre Poilievre, Jamie Orchard, Jim Cuddy

Location: Ottawa

** please check against delivery

Tom Clark:

On this Sunday, the Fair Elections Act, why the Opposition and elections expert is calling fowl on the government’s election reform bill.

And what a difference a campaign makes.  The Quebec election has turned from foregone conclusion to toss up as the Liberals pull even with the Parti Québécois.  We’ll check in for the very latest.

Plus, Blue Rodeo has been called Canada’s band, so what’s Jim Cuddy’s Big Idea for Canada?  It’s not what you might expect.

This is Sunday, March the 30th.  I’m Tom Clark in the nation’s capital, and you are in The West Block.

Well what started as a slow burn of opposition to the Fair Elections Act has turned into a five-alarm fire for the Harper government.  Since the bill was introduced in February, it’s been filibustered, rejected by Canada’s chief electoral officer, and criticized by every elections expert in the country.  The government had used a report by former BC chief elections officer, Harry Neufeld, as its main support, but Neufeld says the government could not have got things more wrong.

Joining me now, the former BC electoral officer and the author of the Neufeld Report, Harry Neufeld.  Thanks very much for being here Mr. Neufeld.  You know, when democratic reform minister Pierre Poilievre was in this studio a few weeks ago, he said that after he read your report, he felt he had no choice but to get rid of vouching because it was so open to abuse.  Is that a fair reading of your report in your conclusions?

Harry Neufeld:

I don’t think so.  It’s quite an interesting leap of logic.  I think if vouching had been off the table, gone, and I had done that report, maybe his focus then would have been on registration at the time of voting because actually in sheer numbers, there was at least twice as many irregularities as there was with registration as there was with vouching.

Tom Clark:

You know let’s just go back to the beginning of this because the concern on this act was that voter fraud was an increasing problem and was a problem within our system.  Is it a problem in our system?

Harry Neufeld:

No, voter fraud isn’t the problem.  People impersonating themselves, that’s not the issue; there are some other issues with electoral fraud and influence but with regards to individuals impersonating and falsely identifying themselves, the investigations I’ve seen, and I’ve been involved in some of them myself, it’s just a handful and it’s generally very elderly people who are confused or have dementia that are the people who are voting more than once.

Tom Clark:

Let’s go through three of the key things, among many in this bill.  Number one:  we were talking about vouching, how many Canadians are involved in vouching?  How many are enfranchised because of that?

Harry Neufeld:

Well the estimate from the last election as a result of the compliance review we did was it was 1 percent; about 120,000 people in the 2011 election.  And that’s a substantial number.  Now these are people, most of who were already registered to vote in the polling division that they’re at but they simply didn’t have the address identification they needed.

Tom Clark:

Okay so that’s 120,000.  One other big change in this bill is going to be the use of voter information cards as a way of identifying yourself.  Those cards that you get in the mail from Elections Canada telling you where to vote and you can use that card.  How many people were enfranchised or voted on the basis of using that card at the polling station?

Harry Neufeld:

Well actually Marc Mayrand had it limited at the last election to only a select number of people, and select groups of people; Aboriginals living on reserves, people in old folks homes, long-term care facilities and students in residences on campuses.  And of those groups, they were the only ones authorized to use the voter information card as a form of address identification.  The estimate is 400,000 people used that.

Tom Clark:

Okay, journalists aren’t very good at math but if I’m adding up 120,000 vouching and some 400,000 using voter identification cards, we’re over a half a million Canadians whose vote is potentially going to be affected negatively by these changes.

Harry Neufeld:

If Bill C-23 goes through the way it is right now, likely they won’t be able to vote.

Tom Clark:

Let’s talk about a third thing because in the bill there’s a provision to have the party in power in the riding appoint the polling supervisor, this is adding a level of political partisanship right in the polling station that we’ve never seen before.  Why, I mean I’m not asking you to explain why the government’s doing it but is there a reasonable, rational explanation as to why that’s being done?

Harry Neufeld:

No this is completely contrary to international best practices in electoral administration.  You don’t have partisans running the poll.  You certainly have partisans there scrutinizing, watching, making sure it’s done properly and that’s very appropriate.  It should be a transparent process but it’s kind of like having a ball team and saying well you know the home team gets to pick the umpire.  It’s just; it’s not the way it should be done.

Tom Clark:

And, I mean what is the consequence of this?  I mean does it tilt the field in favour of somebody?  I mean what are the negatives in this?

Harry Neufeld:

Even if it doesn’t tilt it, it gives the appearance that it’s tilted and I think it’ll undermine Canadians’ respect for the process.

Tom Clark:

So what is the way ahead in all of this?  I mean we’ve got this bill.  It’s become very controversial but the government is not showing any signs of backing off the bill.  What do you think the way ahead is?

Harry Neufeld:

I think the committee’s got their work cut out for them. I think they could and should make some substantive amendments to that bill and if it’s put through with these issues addressed, it could form a proper basis for amending the Election Act and modernizing.  If it doesn’t, I think we’re going to have an immediate series of court challenges.

Tom Clark:

Final question for you because we do a lot of work internationally, as you do, monitoring other peoples’ elections and so on.  If this bill doesn’t go ahead…or if this bill goes ahead un-amended, as the government wants it to, what’s that going to do to our international reputation?

Harry Neufeld:

Oh it’ll certainly drop us down a few rungs.  We’ve always been very, very highly regarded in the international community with regards to how our democracy works in Canada.  And with these features, we lose…we lose some credibility.

Tom Clark:

Harry Neufeld awfully good to talk to you.  Thanks for coming in today.

Harry Neufeld:

Thank you for having me.

Tom Clark:

Okay, well to respond to Mr. Neufeld’s concerns and his report, I’m joined now by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre.  Minister thanks very much for being here.  This is a report incidentally, I just point this out to the audience that you’ve used extensively as a support for the changes that you’re making but Neufeld joins a whole list of experts in this country who have warned you to stop this because it’s wrong, you haven’t got it right.  Are you worried that there is nobody of substance out there who is supporting this bill?

Pierre Poilievre:

Well I think the position that we’ve taken on the bill is very reasonable.  And that is that when someone shows up to vote, that they should have some sort of ID to demonstrate who they are before they cast their ballot.  Now in Canada, you’re not required to use photo ID or even government ID.  You have a choice of 39 different forms of ID that you can present; everything from a utility bill to a student ID card, to a medical hospital bracelet.  I could go on; there are 39.

Tom Clark:

But before you go on, as reasonable as you make that sound, there’s not a single expert who has been swayed by that.  They say it doesn’t matter.  They’re saying that you have got it wrong.  You just heard Mr. Neufeld saying for example that your whole contention that there is massive voter fraud is simply not supported by the facts.  Again, if you don’t have the experts on your side, and I don’t think that you consulted with Mr. Neufeld on this bill in any case, shouldn’t that be a concern to everybody?

Pierre Poilievre:

In fact, when I read his report, what I found is that the safeguards to protect against fraud were systematically violated in the last election; 50,700 times roughly.  And that represented about 42 per cent of the instances where vouching was used.

Tom Clark:

But those are irregularities.  That’s not fraud.

Pierre Poilievre:

But what irregularity means is that the safeguards against fraud were violated.  Let me give you one safeguard.  When you go to vouch for somebody, you’re not allowed to vouch more than once and that’s reasonable.  But in 45,000 cases, we didn’t keep records of the voter and the voucher so you can’t go back and find out if someone was vouching multiple times because of that irregularity.  So the irregularity is what demonstrates the safeguard was removed from the process.

Tom Clark:

But their concern is this, all the experts have said the same thing, to correct a problem that may or may not exist, you’re potentially, potentially disenfranchising over half a million Canadians.

Pierre Poilievre:

I don’t accept that number at all because what it assumes is that every single person who used a voter information card or who is vouched for had no other alternative.  The reason that somebody might have used a voter information card is because they were told it was allowed but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have used one of the other 39 forms of ID.  The reason that we have decided to remove the voter information card as a form of ID is because in the last election, there were an error in one in six of those cards issued and we know that people often get more than one of them which allows them to vote more than once.

Tom Clark:

Let me jump in here because I want to pick up on a couple of things that Neufeld said.

Pierre Poilievre:

Tom Clark:

He said that this bill is going to undermine Canadians respect for their democratic process.  He said that this doesn’t even meet the minimum standards of international democracy and that if we’re going off monitoring other people’s elections they can turn to us and say we wouldn’t even do that sort of stuff in our country and we’re an emerging democracy.  Once again, I mean it’s a reputational thing.  You’re sitting here.  You’ve had criticisms left, right and centre.  You seem to be unmoved by it and yet, who’s on your side?

Pierre Poilievre:

Well I want to pick up on one point that you raised with him because there was a factual error in your question.  You said that it is unheard of for parties to recommend election workers in local polling centres.

Tom Clark:

No, you’re not quoting me correctly.  What I said was, the polling supervisor, that is, never been a party position before.  That’s what I was talking about and that’s true.  That’s a change in your bill.

Pierre Poilievre:

Okay but in the polling location, there is a deputy returning officer who is recommended by the first place party from the previous election and the poll clerk who is recommended by the second place party from the last election.  I want to get to this…I actually believe that’s the way it should be.  Parties should be allowed to recommend those positions because it is a form, of natural form of mutual surveillance, where each party keeps an eye on the other and they all keep each other honest.  And when they all leave, they shake hands and say it was good working with you today…

Tom Clark:

Fair enough.

Pierre Poilievre:

…and everybody from each party can go to their representative and say, was it fair?  Yes, it was.

Tom Clark:

Okay fair enough but you said it was factually incorrect.  It was not.  Let me correct your factual incorrectness right there.  Pierre Poilievre, I’m sorry we’re out of time but this conversation is going to go on for a lot longer.  I hope to have you back to talk about this some more.

Pierre Poilievre:

I look forward to it.

Tom Clark:

I appreciate it.

Well still to come on The West Block, the Quebec election is in the final stretch and the race could not be tighter.  Who’s got the leading edge?  We’ll check in with that.

And later, Blue Rodeo’s Jim Cuddy joins us with his Big Idea for Canada.  Stay tuned.

Break

(Quebec Liberal leader Philippe Couillard campaigning.)

Tom Clark:

With just eight days left to go, Quebec’s party leaders are in the fight of their political lives.  When the vote was called, the Parti Québécois was well in the lead.  This was supposed to be Pauline Marois’ election to lose, and she may just do that.

Joining me now from Montreal is Jamie Orchard, Global Montreal’s chief anchor.  Jamie thanks very much for joining us.  You know I said at the beginning that this was Pauline Marois’ to lose.  Just two weeks ago, we were all talking about how big is her majority going to be.  Now it’s a question of whether she’s going to lose the election entirely.  What on Earth happened?

Jamie Orchard:

Don’t you love campaigns Tom, that’s how it is, right?  Yeah, no one, least of all Marois, would have thought that she would be in this position with a week to go in the election.  And I think to sum it up very briefly, what really knocked her off the rails was Day 4 of this campaign when she introduced Pierre Karl Péladeau as a candidate.  This really hurt the Parti Québécois on two fronts.  Pierre Karl Péladeau is not liked at all by the unions here in Quebec.  Eighteen times he has locked out his employees.  He’s considered a heavy union buster in this province and as you know, the Parti Québécois gets a lot of its support from unions here.  So that hit her from that side.  And then of course Tom, the famous fist pump that PKP did saying he’s in this campaign to make a country for his children.  That put the referendum front and centre for much of the beginning of this campaign; almost the first two and a half weeks.

Tom Clark:

And that really is the big elephant in the room or the éléphant dans la pièce as they say.  The whole question of referendum, sovereignty being back on the front burner; it really seems that Quebecers and I’m asking for your view on this, are not there.  They may be there in terms of Pauline Marois and the Parti Québécois but not in terms of separation.

Jamie Orchard:

Yeah, politically the Parti Québécois is there but you talk to Quebecers and this is something that is little understood in the rest of Canada and it has been like this for years.  Seven out of 10 Quebecers do not want a referendum.  That’s two-thirds of people in this province and that has to be said over and over again.  So imagine the Parti Québécois in this campaign, the last thing they wanted to talk about is referendum.  Seasoned politicians in the PQ know that they keep it on the backburner of their agenda but in campaigns they don’t bring it to the front burner.  When Pierre Karl Péladeau did that, he knocked them right off because up until Day 22 of this campaign, Pauline Marois couldn’t talk economy, she couldn’t talk social programs, all she could do was talk referendum and that swayed the vote in favour of Philippe Couillard.  It divided Quebecers and when they’re divided and they don’t want a referendum, they tend to vote Liberal.

Tom Clark:

And it sort of is a new political rule; be careful about bringing in star candidates because they tend to upset the apple cart.  Literally, in the 20 seconds I’ve got left Jamie, is it your sense that the vote is solidifying or could this be still explosive in the next week to come?

Jamie Orchard:

I think it’s going to be an explosive week.  I think it’s either PQ or Liberal.  The other two parties will steal votes from the other two.  It’s going to go one way or another but nobody knows at this point which way.  It’ll be interesting to watch which issues come up.  If Pauline Marois can really focus on hammering Philippe Couillard on integrity and he can focus on hammering her on the referendum, it could go either way, Tom.  It’ll be interesting to see.

Tom Clark:

It’s going to be fascinating and I’ll be joining you on election night in Montreal; looking forward to that.  Jamie Orchard thanks very much for joining us.  We’ll see you in a week’s time.

Jamie Orchard:

Thanks Tom.

Tom Clark:

Well still to come, what is Jim Cuddy’s Big Idea for Canada?  Blue Rodeo’s lead singer is up next.

Break

Tom Clark:

Welcome back.  Well for the past few months, we’ve been going across the country, talking to some of Canada’s most creative thinkers and asking them this one question:  What can Canada do in the next 10 years to really make a difference?

For this instalment, we turn to a musical icon.  Here’s his Big Idea:

Jim Cuddy and Greg Keelor have received multiple honours from their country.  A country that they have seen more of than most.  From the small taverns to NHL arenas, from big cities to remote villages; it was from that perspective that Jim and I sat down to talk about his Big Idea for Canada.

So the question is this, what can we do as a country in the next 10 years that would make a real difference?

Jim Cuddy:

First of all, let me just do the caveat here that really, asking me for The Big Idea is very embarrassing to me.  You know, The Big Idea, for God sake, I’ve thrived on small ideas, but I have…you know this particular time in my life is…you’ve caught me at a good time because especially with this tour going up to Fort Mac, going to meet Dr. David Suzuki in Vancouver and trying to talk to all my musician friends and saying we need to do something.    I think that the most important matter that confronts us now in this country is, how do we balance and economics and conservation of our environment?  I think that the fight that happens up in Fort Mac and the oil sands is the most critical thing that we have to decide and figure out some unity on.

Tom Clark:

Try to find that balance then between the environment and the economy, and the economy represented by the oil sands.  Take a look at it in a 10-year perspective.  You’re talking about bringing other people into this.  So what is it that has to be done to find that balance first of all?

Jim Cuddy:

Okay well, first of all you have to appreciate that The Big Idea, and this is Suzuki’s Big Idea so you’re not doing him are you?

Tom Clark:

No, just you.

Jim Cuddy:

Okay.  His Big Idea, and I endorse it and I’m now stealing it, is to urge the politicians to write into the Constitution environmental protection so that if that is part of our Constitution, nothing can be done in this country without first saying what will it do to our environment?  What will it do to our water?  What will it do to our air?  And most importantly, what will it do to the agreements that we’ve signed like the Copenhagen Agreement to not raise the temperature of the world more than two degrees.

Tom Clark:

Let’s talk about how you get there.

Jim Cuddy:

Well I think that the huge basis of this is to get people in the room together that represent industry and that represent environmental concerns, and find a common language.  Currently, there is too much hyperbole from both sides.  There’s too much if you do this we’re ruined.  If you do this we’re ruined.  We’ll never get anywhere.  We haven’t gotten anywhere.

Tom Clark:

To get to your Big Idea, which is to put in the Constitution, environmental protection, you said yourself that what has to happen first is that the heat has to come out of the argument; the two sides have got to get together to talk.

Jim Cuddy:

I think that what there’s going to be is there is going to be a cross-country tour that will…under the heading of sort of like your idea, what do you want your town to look like in 30 years?  What do you want this place to be 30 years from now?  I think that that’s the way we start the dialogue by going across country and that’s the way that I think in our little way that the community I represent, the musical community can come onboard.

Tom Clark:

Jim says he doesn’t buy into the idea that celebrities like himself, should hold any more sway than anyone else.  But he says that acting as individual citizens, celebrities can help raise and focus the debate for others to conduct.

And you’re putting together a national tour to start this…

Jim Cuddy:

I’m going to be part…I’m going to be the musical help for a tour that’s already been put in place.

You know I think that the people of my community again represent a good…we’re a good starting point because we’re heavy duty users of energy.  You know we need energy.  We need to move around.  We are the hypocrites if we say you know, shut down the oil sands.  Nobody wants that.  So I think that knowing there is a need and knowing that we prosper from this, we can be the Greek choir behind the people actually doing the work.

Tom Clark:

Have you got a lot of hope that this can dissipate in the way that you want it to?  And how do you finally lead that conversation to convince a very polarized political environment in this country to re-open the Constitution to put in environmental protection.

Jim Cuddy:

I mean I think you have to have a wild exotic dream to forge ahead, but I know from doing charity work in Alberta, when people come up to me, engineers, people that have made their money in the business and say, you can do something because you don’t make your money from oil.  So you can do something.  You can pressure the government because we don’t want to do this to our children.  Nobody wants to come away with a $100 million dollars and feel like they’ve poisoned the town in which they work.  So I think that there is an undulating will for all this to be exposed and it needs to be framed in the right way.  It’s better not…you know, not twisted by the environmentalists and not twisted by the oil companies.  What are we actually doing?  And I think you can convince people to want to protect things for the next generation, yes.  And in that way you know, maybe it wouldn’t happen but even if we came close, even if we framed a dialogue about entrenching it in the Constitution we’d still be further ahead than we are today.

Tom Clark:

So The Big Idea, within the next 10 years, launch the dialogue that may lead to Constitutional protection of the environment, is that it?

Jim Cuddy:

Yes, that’s it.  It sounds pretty good.  That’s big man.

Tom Clark:

Well let us know what you think about Jim’s Big Idea.  You can find us online at http://www.thewestblock.ca.  You can also reach us on Twitter and Facebook.

Well that is our show for this week.  Thanks for joining us.  I’m Tom Clark.  We’ll see you back here next Sunday.  Have a great week.