So here’s the conspiracy theory.
Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand surely knows that the Harper government — and its majority in the House of Commons — has a dim view of his impartiality. Whether that view is deserved or not is not the issue: The fact is Conservatives believe Mayrand has improperly interpreted and unfairly applied Canada’s election laws. And Mayrand or anyone at Elections Canada would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to know this.
And now, here comes that same government with a request last fall for his suggestions on how elections law ought to be changed.
Mayrand certainly knows that there would be a good chance that this government will not heed his recommendations and, in fact, may even try to diminish the power of his office. If that happens, his only recourse will be the court of public opinion.
And, so, in preparation for a potential fight with the goverment, Mayrand decides to create a blue-ribbon “advisory panel” who will guide his work. He gets to choose who is on it. And he will be sure to choose eminent Canadians who may be expected to share his or his agency’s broad world view about how elections ought to be conducted and how Elections Canada can be strengthened to become an even better referee. He may not ask them explicitly to do so but he may hope that, if push comes to shove, his appointees will speak out for the very reforms they will be advising Mayrand to recommend to the government. Click here to see the blue chip names on the board.
The country’s elected officials — neither governing nor opposition MPs — will not have any input into the selection of this advisory board. Indeed, “Members of the Board are appointed by the CEO (Mayrand) for terms of not less than one and not more than three years and are eligible for reappointment at the discretion of the CEO.” That’s what it says right there at Elections Canada Web site.
Moreover, many members of this advisory board will be paid for their work:
Compensation of Board Members
Members of the Board shall be eligible for reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred through service to the Board and shall be compensated for their participation in meetings of the Board and its committees at a rate of $1,500 per diem. Additionally, the Chair or Co-Chairs shall be compensated for administrative and preparatory work in the capacity as Chair or Co-Chairs at a rate of $1,750 per diem.
A maximum of $386,000 will paid out in per diems over three years. However much it costs Mayrand’s agency in per diems, it will, for Mayrand, be money well spent. For, sure enough, the government, when it does unveils its proposed reform of election law — in Bill C-23: The Fair Elections Act — it not only ignores Mayrand’s recommendations but it tries to diminish the power of his office.
Mayrand very publicly takes issue with the bill. And, by coincidence or not, so does one of the bluest of blue-chip names on his payroll: Sheila Fraser, the former auditor general. Fraser this week blasted C-23.
Fraser and former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie are co-chairs of Mayrand’s advisory board. Fraser’s contract, confusingly says it runs from Dec. 4, 2013 to March 31, 2014 and is worth was worth a maximum of just over $65,000 for that four-month period. In fact, that is the maximum amount Fraser can be paid over a three-year period. Fraser, on Twitter, tells me so far, she has been paid $2,450 for her work. For Binnie, it was just under $69,000 maximum for three years work.
Does the fact that Fraser is or was being paid by Elections Canada diminish the credibility of her criticism of C-23? Not in my book. Her criticisms ought to be examined on their merits. But it seems to me to be a completely uncontroversial thing to note, for the record, that she has a financial relationship with Elections Canada which, like her, opposes C-23. If, for example, a member of the board of directors of an oil company writes an op-ed arguing the merits of this or that energy issue, one notes somewhere that the individual has a financial relationship with the oil company. A reader may then decide if that financial relationship enhances the credibility of the opinion offered, diminishes it, or has no effect.
But whether or not Fraser was paid is really not the point. In fact, to be explicit: I think it absurd to conclude that any of those on Mayrand’s panel have an opinion for rent or hire.
No, the interesting thing here is that the panel exists at all, that Mayrand was politically savvy enough to allocate tens of thousands of tax dollars to assemble a group which he almost certainly could count on to say that a) Elections Canada’s function ought to be strengthened and not diminished and b) Elections Canada ought to have new powers to investigate and enforce elections law. And, of course, the government, in C-23, has, it may be reasonably argued, has done precisely the opposite: It is diminishing the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and is removing Elections Canada’s very ability to investigate and enforce elections law. And that’s why it is not surprising to learn that Fraser is speaking out against C-23. It would be surprising if Mayrand had appointed anyone who could have been expected to agree with anyone other than what Mayrand had been hinting about in terms of reforms of his office for years. We do not know what is said at these closed-door advisory board meetings but I would almost certainly bet that none of the board members argued that investigations should be hived off from Elections Canada and that the CEO ought to be muzzled — which is what C-23 does.
At the end of the day, the government knows it has the votes in the House of Commons to do whatever it wants to Mayrand’s agency.
Mayrand is fighting for what he believes in and his only hope to get the government to change its bill is through public opinion and moral suasion. For that, he has smartly enlisted the sterling reputations of Sheila Fraser, Ian Binnie, et al.
Is it paying off for Mayrand? I would say so: Here’s the very wise Bruce Anderson with an op-ed: “Conservatives will only lose fighting Sheila Fraser”.
At least that’s my conspiracy theory.
“I think it absurd to conclude that any of those on Mayrand’s panel have an opinion for rent or hire.”
… and yet you are all of twitter today suggesting just that absurdity.
Pretty shoddy all the way around, Mr. Akins. I thought you were the exception to the general rule at Sun News, apparently not so.
Kudos for a well researched and informative article and kudos to Mayrand for having assembled such a well balanced and believable advisory panel with the likes of Fraser, Wilson, Segal, Binnie and others to advise on important changes related to our democracy.
How can Polièvre even raise the issue of compensation to marginalize the advices given to Mayrand… His own party has appointented and is paying in a similar way hundreds of individuals to sit on the boards of directors of crown corporations and agencies !!!
Good governance comes with a price and all Canadians should be thankful that different opinions are being voiced in the debate around fair elections. Minister Polièvre still has a few things to learn beyond negative attacks … His approach does little for his credibility. I, like many Canadians , am getting tired of politicians who cannot work positively and constructively at resolving issues. The focus needs to shift from what “the politician wants” to what “Canadians want and need”
Shame on you Mr. Polièvre.
Wow, what a warped and twisted point of view. How about you focus on the actual parts of the legislation that are most objectionable and debate that? Instead we get this garbage piece on the “politics” of those who oppose it. Maynard is not doing this for his own good, he is doing this for the good of our democracy.
I’m not sure how a per diem of $1,500 for periodic work compares to the $90,000 per day Harper paid the consultants he hired to advise on government downsizing; something he campaigned on being capable of doing, whilst never mentioning the need for outside consultants and they were paid for full time work!
Completely destroys any credibility on the part of the author.
So to summarize ….
1) Fraser’s relationship to Elections Canada is irrelevant.
2) Irrelevant is worth reporting.
Oooookay then.
3) It is worth reporting because it makes an attention-grabbing headline that can be explained away by the rest of the content (for those who read it) explaining why the suggestiveness in the headline is not actually a story but instead irrelevant and not worth reporting.
Ahhh, got it. Well, you do after all work for the SUN.
I’m giving you a hard time here, but in reality I actually do think there is an audience for this piece–and it would definitely be found among SUN readers–who, out of cripplingly blind and thought-cramping tribalism, might well have leapt to such an absurd pitiful conspiracy theory. Despite how unthinkable and idiotic that might seem to most reasonable people, I do believe there would have been some to make this leap. This blog posts’ clarification may well help dispel their delusion. So kudos.
To think that Mayrand would want to reinforce his views any way he can is perhaps logical, even if it is inappropriate. To think that Mayrand can camouflage his hand picked troops and not be outed for politicking is not logical. For Mayrand to think he can get away with politicking is regrettable.
No matter what you think of Bill C-23, the Chief Electoral Officer is accountable to the people of Canada, who have delegated Parliament to make changes to Canada’s election laws, subject of course to our Constitution.
Mayrand is politicking pure and simple. He should leave that to politicians, and respect the role he has be given, and from time to time changes made to that role through the lawful passage of legislation.
I am getting really tired of the arrogance of public servants who think it is their job to direct the elected representatives of Canadians. Whether its Canadian Wheat Board CEO’s, Atomic Energy Commission officials, or Elections Canada officials its all the same. These people are hired by the Government of Canada, to whom they are accountable. They need to know that the tail does not wag the dog.
David. At the very end, you linked to the “very wise” Bruce Anderson. Do you not think it important to let your readers know that Bruce’s daughter works for Trudeau? I wonder what angle Bruce is going to put on his article. Do you think we are stupid?
And why is Preston Manning undermining the Harper Government by sitting on this double-crossing board of directors? Is he secretly a supporter of Mayrand’s Sharia Election Laws? How can we be sure this isn’t part of a far-sighted coalition plot hatched by Mayrand to take over Canada involving Manning, Michael Wilson, Hugh Segal, Fraser (etc)?
Sure, Marc, spend a few hundred thousand on lobbying for your job as an administrator. It’s only our money. And what is Manning doing in there? What no conflict of interest with Bruce Anderson – whoever he is. Just because his daughter works for Mr. Flower Power.