Magic Statistics

The current version of Bill C-2, the proposed Federal Accountability Act now wending its way through Parliament, would reduce the annual limit on individual donations to political parties and candidates to $1000.  One expert thinks that is much too low.  Leslie Seidle of the Institute for Research and Public Policy says that political parties are already too dependent on public funding and Bill C-2 risks making them into clients of the state.

The proposed individual donation limits under Bill C-2 are too low, political parties are becoming "empty shells" and they're relying so heavily on public funds that Canada's party system is headed for a "state system," says one expert on political financing.

Leslie Seidle, a senior research associate at the Institute for Research and Public Policy, who described Bill C-24, passed in 2004 under prime minister Jean Chrétien, as "the most significant reform of political financing" since 1974, said Bill C-24's reforms "significantly" increased public funding of the federal political process because reimbursements to political parties were raised from 22.5 per cent to 50 per cent of election expenses; and election expense limits for parties were raised, in part because the definition of "election expenses" was changed, and this pushed up the reimbursements.

Mr. Seidle said the increase in the level of public funding post-Bill C-24 "is very high."

Figures included in The Hill Times article indicate that, in 2004, public moneys flowing to Canada’s four main parties totaled almost six times the amount in 2000.

With increasing reliance on public funding, he said, Canadian party politics is evolving into a system unlike any other Western democracy.  Political parties need the government more than they need individual donors. Mr Seidle believes that, even now in many parts of the country, parties are "empty shells", virtually closing up shop when neither an election nor a leadership race is going on.

He also expressed very serious concerns about the debts being accumulated by candidates in the current race for the national leadership of the Liberal Party.

By failing to enforce its own laws against polygamy, Canada is contravening international standards of human rights, argues a new report commissioned by Canada's Department of Justice and authored by Rebecca Cook, Professor and Faculty Chair in International Human Rights, University of Toronto.

Canada is violating international human rights law by allowing polygamous relationships to thrive with impunity and could face a global rebuke for failing to act, a report commissioned by Justice Canada has concluded.

The $20,000 study by University of Toronto law professor Rebecca Cook, just released and obtained by Sun Media, finds there are no justifications on religious, cultural or family grounds for polygamy under international law that prohibits discrimination against women. Canada's Criminal Code prohibits polygamy, yet multi-wife marriages and polygamous communities like Bountiful, B.C., have openly flourished.

The report focuses specifically on "polygyny", having more than one wife at a time, rather than the broader "polygamy", having more than one spouse at a time.   Based on in-depth study of many internationally recognised human rights treaties and documents, the report states in its conclusion:

[P]olygyny violates women's right to be free from all forms of discrimination
. . .
[B]ecause "polygamy violates the dignity of women" and is "an inadmissible discrimination against women… it should be definitely abolished wherever it continues to exist."
. . .
[P]olygyny undermines the rights of women and children in relation to family life, security, and citizenship.
. . .
[T]he right to equality within marriage and the family is violated per se by polygyny, regardless of the cultural or religious context in which it is practised.
. . .
This conclusion that polygyny constitutes an unjustifiable violation of the rights of women and children can increasingly be seen as the opinio juris driving state practice to prohibit or at least restrict the practice. An outright prohibition of polygyny is the norm in the majority of states, including all of the Americas, Europe, countries of the former Soviet Union, Nepal, Vietnam, China, Turkey, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Fiji and Côte d'Ivoire, amongst others. Regional trends in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia are increasingly toward restricting and eventually prohibiting the practice.  [footnotes omitted]

Canada’s failure to prosecute polygamous Mormons in Bountiful, BC, has been a focus of recent criticism.  Dr Cook suggests that, if a complaint against Canada for failing to enforce laws forbidding polygamy were to be brought before an international human rights tribunal, Canada could lose.

Federal Justice Vic Toews expresses his government’s strong support for anti-polygamy laws but points out that enforcing those laws is a provincial responsibility.

The full report, entitled “Polygyny and Canada's Obligations under International Human Rights Law”, may be accessed here in html format.  The pdf version of the document, available here, is 138 pages long. The report contains dozens of references to polygynous Fundamentalist Mormon sects and documents reports of physical, emotional, and other abuses suffered by women and children in such relationships.  There is also some discussion of polygyny in Islam.

Dr Cook’s report presents a stark contrast to another recent government-commissioned report on polygamy.  Last January, Status of Women Canada released a report calling for the repeal of Canada’s laws against polygamy.  And now Status of Women Canada has been de-funded.  I doubt that’s coincidental.

h/t: National News Watch

Previous related posts:

• Polygamy already recognised in Canada
• Enforce Canada’s polygamy laws
• BC polygamists send kids to public schools

The Globe and Mail gets crucial facts wrong and, because of its own errors, levels an outrageous accusation against Yukon’s premier.

The Globe reporter practically accuses Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie of calling the territorial election unnecessarily early in order to take advantage of the illness of Yukon NDP leader Todd Hardy.

Two weeks after Yukon New Democratic Party Leader Todd Hardy was sent by air ambulance from Whitehorse to a Vancouver hospital to receive chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, he had an important visitor: Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie.

The two hadn't seen each other since Mr. Hardy, 49, abruptly left Whitehorse for St. Paul's Hospital in early August after he was diagnosed with cancer of the white blood cells.

In the fourth year of his government's mandate, Mr. Fentie, 56, had about three months to drop the writ, and talked with Mr. Hardy about the timing of the election.

Although Mr. Hardy, whose cancer by now was in remission, told his long-time rival he would need more time to regain his strength before the vote, Mr. Fentie apparently wasn't having it. About two weeks later, with Mr. Hardy still bedridden, he announced the election for Oct. 10.

That election timeline is absolutely wrong.  When Mr Fentie visited Mr Hardy in Vancouver in late August, the government did not have "about three months to drop the writ".  By law, the election had to be held by 11 November at the very latest, four years from the return of the writ following the previous territorial general election.  Given also that at least thirty-one days must elapse between issuing the writ and the election date, the writ had to be issued by 11 October at the very latest.  The actual date on which Mr Fentie made the election call was 8 September—just over a month before the legal limit.

(The above facts concerning timing of Yukon elections were verified by personal communication with Yukon’s Assistant Chief Electoral Officer.)

Mr Fentie did not have, as the Globe states, some 2-1/2 months in which to call the election; he was down to one month.

The erroneous timeline is the basis for the Globe’s headline: “Rough and tumble politics, Yukon style”.  “Rough and tumble advocacy journalism” is more like it. Way to go, Globe and Mail.  Canada’s national newspaper of record?  I think not.

The Globe and Mail obviously needs to hire some reliable fact-checkers.  It should also publish an apology to Mr Fentie.

Previous related post:  Yukoners heading to the polls