With C-23 looming, I need to apologize for my 2004 voting experiment

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca for as little as $5 per month!

image: James Di Fiore

This piece is an apology. Although I do not believe a story I wrote single-handedly changed electoral law, it has been used to support the development of the Fair Elections Act.

I am one of eight people who, since 1992, have been convicted of a voter fraud offence in Canada. The exact wording of my charge was "Applying to be on a list of electors twice."

The truth is that in order to write a story on possible voter fraud, I cast three ballots in the 2004 Federal election. One vote was for the candidate I thought best represented my riding, and two were deliberately spoiled ballots. 

It was remarkably easy to cast three ballots, and I never once considered the ideological implications a strict set of electoral laws seems to wield. I had been reading the Elections Act, as some political junkies find themselves doing from time to time, and noticed a provision that allowed people to vote in federal elections without any identification whatsoever. This puzzled me, so on Election Day I ventured out and successfully cast three ballots, all without any identification. 

And now I wish I could take them all back. 

Parliamentarians have used my story to help explain why they believe tougher voting regulations are needed during elections. Even while this was happening I still believed having identification or using the vouching system made more sense than allowing people to simply sign an on-the-spot registration form without proving they have the legal right to vote. It seemed impossible that our elections should be so unprotected from fraudsters or cheaters. 

It wasn't until the following federal election that CSIS began investigating the multiple cast ballots. The Toronto Star published a letter of mine excoriating Jean-Pierre Kingsley for an op-ed piece about how Canada's elections were the envy of the world. In my letter, I relayed the story of voting three times, and was put under investigation for the following eight months. 

The strange thing about being investigated for electoral fraud was that I could have remained quiet and the charges would have been dropped. Without my real name on the registration forms, they never would have been able to proceed, despite my public announcements. Then, I had to agree to be interviewed, agree to sign their evidence, agree to make recorded and handwritten statements, or they would have had nothing. Action against me required my full, unfettered cooperation. I gave it happily. I did vote three times, which was illegal.

In February 2008, Conservative MP Scott Reid mentioned my situation at a standing committee meeting in Ottawa. At the meeting, Reid was attempting to paint Elections Canada as being biased against the Conservative Party of Canada. He was responding to the In and Out scandal allegations, which Reid referred to as a "make believe scandal," and accused Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, of violating the Canada Elections Act by pursuing the case. Reid also mentioned the Liberal Party candidate who lost the election to Olivia Chow in 2004, former MP Tony Ianno, who publicly called for my prosecution after the election, arguing I had been an agent for Chow's campaign and was living proof voter fraud was a real problem in Canada. 

But voter fraud is not a problem in Canada.

This year, when the Harper government revealed their Fair Elections Act, the full scope of how I might have contributed to it finally became clear to me. The Act eliminates vouching altogether, based on questionable statistics. The main report from Harry Neufeld is cited by the Minister of Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre, nearly every day, but Neufeld has stated Poilievre is drastically misinterpreting the report to fit with the idea that Canadian elections are fraught with fraud and irregularities. Poilievre and I chatted via Facebook this week and he recycled his main talking points after I pressed him on whether or not the government would institute a national/voter ID card to prevent disenfranchisement. 

"There are 39 accepted forms of ID. You do not need government issued ID and you do not need photo ID," Poilievre wrote. "Thanks for your feedback, James."

No worries, Pierre. 

As his detractors have pointed out, and in my own personal experience, the vast majority of these irregularities can be attributed to badly trained or incompetent staffers working at the polling stations. Simply put, Canada does not have a problem with voter fraud and the problems it does have with its elections are not due to the vouching system.

My case has been indirectly referenced by Poilievre in his quest to remove vouching from the list of options voters have when casting their ballots. This gives me a sad realization of my small role in the probable disenfranchisement of thousands of Canadians. 

Perhaps this story of regret can help shed light on the differences between safeguarding our elections, and empowering our ideologies. I would like to express my regret for unintentionally supporting the development of the elections act that is now before parliament. The issue reveals ideological behavior on the far right and the far left, but in the end the fight for democracy is very real. 

Or perhaps this story will continue to be used anecdotally to promote a legislative solution in search of an electoral problem. 

James Di Fiore is a Toronto freelance writer with past work in NOW Magazine, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and several online outlets.He also produces documentary films and has one published children's book.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.