Canadian Election: It's On

[notyoueither]

But Layton seems to be doing it all on his own. What do you do when your leader goes wingnut?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/29/canada/layton1_union040529

Following the speech in Toronto Layton touched on international security issues saying it would be better to change the North Atlantic Treaty Organization than to abandon it. "We've been very clear we don't think that NATO is the appropriate kind of institution for the future, so we would work to transform it," Layton said.

For decades, the NDP pledged to withdraw Canada from NATO.

You know, there may just be a reason or two, or fifty-four, that the NDP has never gotten anywhere close to power nationally.

[Agathon]

Most Canadians don't give a **** about a few hundred troops in Iraq, which is why the focus is on more immediate, domestic issues like health care.

Half right and half wrong. I don't think they care about the troops per se, but there is tremendous anti-Bush feeling in mainstream Canada and the rest of the world too.

We live in a post 9/11 world and one of the things that means is that people who never cared about foreign relations or anything outside their home town now actually think about these things. That's the political reality right now. The people who really don't care don't even vote.

[Tingkai]

That Greg Weston tall tale is good for a laugh.

If the PC ran a strong campaign in Edmonton West, they would have split the right-wing vote and that would have benefits the Liberals.

So we're supposed to believe that the Liberals wanted a weak PC candidate.


As for Clark's riding, you had a respected, red tory, former prime minister and party leader running in a conservative stronghold. So why exactly did he need help from the Liberals? What chance did the Liberals have of winning Calgary Centre?

Gimme a break.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
That Greg Weston tall tale is good for a laugh.

If the PC ran a strong campaign in Edmonton West, they would have split the right-wing vote and that would have benefits the Liberals.

So we're supposed to believe that the Liberals wanted a weak PC candidate.


As for Clark's riding, you had a respected, red tory, former prime minister and party leader running in a conservative stronghold. So why exactly did he need help from the Liberals? What chance did the Liberals have of winning Calgary Centre?

Gimme a break.

They would have pulled votes from McLellan if they had any kind of campaign at all. They made it very easy for Tories to vote for Anne when they didn't bother to show up at all.

As for Clark, I'm not sure, but Liberals for Clark is understandable to me. Middle of the road Albertans were damn pissed that the political landscape hereabouts had been high-jacked by Manning and then the CA. Have you ever heard of strategic voting?

[notyoueither]

I'm sort of surprised this isn't a bigger issue.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Licia_Corbella/2004/05/30/478687.html

Sun, May 30, 2004

In dark over new gag law

Elections Canada agents don't understand bill that could send Canadians to jail

By Licia Corbella -- Calgary Sun

I decided to call Elections Canada and pretend that I wanted to run a so-called "third-party" election ad.

What happened to me next was shocking, and what's more, had I not known more about the act than most of the ignorant, though pleasant "agents" who took my questions, I could have embarked down a road that could have landed in me in jail for violating this draconian and undemocratic law.

In case you were asleep or on vacation last week, the Supreme Court of Canada, so fond of reading non-existent rights into the Charter, actually scrubbed out the most vital and fundamental of all of our rights -- political speech during an election. Just like that, with the scratch of a pen, because our ruling politicians want to stay in power.

Should you, Joe and Jane citizen (now known as "third parties") care to place an ad in a newspaper or on television or radio to tell other Canadians about an issue you feel passionately about, you must first register yourself with Elections Canada.

If you plan to spend more than $5,000 on an ad, you must hire an auditor.

First, I called the head office in Ottawa of Elections Canada. The first three agents I spoke with there had not even heard about "third-party" election advertising laws.

This was my scenario. Though I hate telling lies, I felt if they knew I was with the media, I would be treated differently. I told Elections Canada agents I had written and designed some ads that I wanted to run in the Sun. I had been quoted a price of $11,000 for the ads (though I just made that number up). There is a $3,000 spending limit for us lowly "third-parties," but since the Sun is distributed over many electoral ridings, can I just multiply the amount by that number of electoral districts?

AGENT: "Sounds fine with me. It's your money, you should be able to do whatever you want with it," says the agent, who I think is called Giselle, but it could have been Isabel.

ME: "I agree with you entirely. So is that your answer? This is kind of important. After all, if I interpret this wrong, I could go to jail and have a criminal record for life."

AGENT: "Oh. It seems you need further electoral interpretation. Just a moment." Musak comes on. She is the fifth agent I have spoken with, the second at Elections Canada's toll free number (1-800-463-6868.)

Yet another agent comes on the line. Her name is Bessie. She is AGENT No. 6, whom I assumed must finally be the one who is knowledgeable about this law that can send innocent, well-meaning and involved Canadians to jail.

I tell her the above scenario. There is a pause on the line.

BESSIE: "So you want to know if there's any laws for you to voice your opinions, basically?"

ME: "No, I already know there's a law. It's called the election gag law by those who don't like it but it's part of the Canada Elections Act and is called the election third-party advertising law. Have you heard of it?"

BESSIE: "No, I have not."

ME: "The Supreme Court just came down with a ruling upholding this law that limits the amount of money Canadians can spend of their own money advertising their own point of view."

BESSIE: "Oh, OK, I have heard about that," she says, unconvincingly.

ME: "I want to know that if I spend $11,000 on an ad in the Calgary Sun that I won't be thrown in jail for doing so."

At this point I have been on the line for 18 minutes and that doesn't include the initial three people who gave me the runaround when I called Elections Canada's main office in Ottawa.

BESSIE: "OK, but you're an individual. You're not a candidate or anything?"

ME: "No, I'm an individual."

BESSIE: "Well, that sounds OK to me, but just give me a moment, I'll check." (Musak comes on) I'm on hold for three more minutes when Bessie comes back on the line and starts reading the Bill to me.

I tell her I've read the law. What I need is guidance. After all, this is serious. I could go to jail for a very long time if I interpret this wrong.

BESSIE: "I can't interpret the act, I can only read to you from the act."

ME: "I can read too, Bessie. I have read the act. I obviously know a lot more about it than you do. I need help interpreting it so I don't get charged with a criminal offence."

BESSIE: "I'm going to see what I can find out." (Musak comes back on.) At the 26-minute mark, my display phone indicates that I have been hung up on.

Not willing to waste another half-hour being put through a gauntlet of poorly trained and informed "agents," I phone back to the Chief Electoral Officer's number in Ottawa, explain that I have spoken to six agents -- all of whom know less than me -- and I want to speak to someone who knows something.

I am transferred three times. Finally, I speak to Trevor Knight, a most polite and apologetic young fella.

He informs me that if I mention a specific candidate's name I am limited to spending $3,000 (which has been raised because of the cost of living to $3,378.) If I keep the ad general I can spend $150,000.

"So," I ask, "this is the final word? I can say, should I be charged under this act, that Trevor Knight told me this?"

Trevor then chuckles nervously. "Well, this is just legal information, as opposed to legal advice," he informs me.

"It would probably be best to call your own lawyer to be sure."

Isn't Canadian democracy wonderful?

You have to register with the state if you intend to spend more than $500.

You must hire an auditor if you spend more than $5,000 and now -- even when you go to Elections Canada's legal department -- their final word is call your lawyer?

The six Supreme Court justices who upheld this draconian law should go through this exercise and see for themselves the chilling effect this law has on free speech in this country.

I urge Justices Bastarache, Iacobucci, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish to do what I did, though I know they won't.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Canadians, however, should be outraged.

Why do so few care?

So how do we feel about the need to have our attorneys in tow if we decide to get involved in an election?

[St Leo]

Should you, Joe and Jane citizen (now known as "third parties") care to place an ad in a newspaper or on television or radio to tell other Canadians about an issue you feel passionately about, you must first register yourself with Elections Canada.

If you plan to spend more than $5,000 on an ad, you must hire an auditor.

So how do we feel about the need to have our attorneys in tow if we decide to get involved in an election?

Oh, no! The homeless and the welfare impoverished will no longer be able to place paid $5000+ announcements in the papers about their plight. This is a travesty of justice.

[Flinx]

It is appalling that Elections Canada is so disorganised, and that its staff are willing to make up answers to questions they know nothing about. It is shocking that the people at Elections Canada, who are there to answer people’s questions, are so ill informed about the election laws and it is unacceptable that they gave Ms. Corbella such a run-a-round.

Up to the conversation with Trevor Knight, Ms. Corbella has written an excellent article that upholds her journalistic duty to inform the public; the remainder of the article is erroneous and misleading. Trevor Knight provided Ms. Corbella the legal information she wanted regarding the ad she intended to run in the Calgary Sun: if the ad mentioned a specific candidate's name, she was only allowed to spend $3,000, if the ad was general in nature however, she could spend up to $150,000. Ms. Corbella then asks for legal advice. Trevor Knight is not her lawyer, he has not reviewed the proposed ad versus the statute: he is in no position to provide Ms. Corbella with legal advice and in fact probably has a fiduciary duty to tell her that. Ms. Corbella should be praising Mr. Knight for not providing her with misleading/inaccurate information as Bessie and Giselle/Isabel did.

Ms. Corbella’s statement “You have to register with the state if you intend to spend more than $500” brought images of George Orwell’s 1984 to mind. But hang on; if you donate $500 to a political party, they have to publish that fact. Just yesterday Ms. Corbella’s Edmonton colleague Greg Weston ridiculed the “mysterious group” Liberals for Clark. If it is not good in that case to have an individual or group operating in semi-secrecy trying to influence the outcome of an election then she should be applauding the government for requiring everyone trying to influence an election declare his or her involvement. I suspect Ms. Corbella and the Sun media chain were demanding last fall that Paul Martin reveal who donated to his leadership campaign and how much. What is good for Paul is good for Licia.


“The six Supreme Court justices who upheld this draconian law should go through this exercise and see for themselves the chilling effect this law has on free speech in this country.” What does the poor quality of service provided by Elections Canada call centre staff have to do with judges ruling on the legality of a statute? What in particular about this law is “draconian”? In what way did Ms. Corbella’s extremely frustrating call to Elections Canada to seek information on this law have a “chilling effect … on free speech in this country”? How exactly does a cap of $150,000 limit Ms. Corbella from expressing herself? If Ms. Corbella really feels she needs to spend more than $150,000 to express her political views then maybe she should register as a candidate. If it is a good idea for public companies to provide audited financial statements to investors why is it not a good idea for the parties involved in a public political campaign to also provide an audited account to voters of how money was spent?

Does Ms. Corbella think Canada should have a political system where only rich white male property owners have a say or one where the rules are such that a millionaire and a working class person have the same opportunity and ability to express themselves?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Using the election forecaster, http://esm.ubc.ca/CA04/forecast.html

this is what I figure:

(have to adjust for Quebec.)


BC

6 LIB
4 NDP
24 CON


Alberta:

25 CON
1 LIB

Ontario

54 LIB
3 NDP
46 CON

(Dropped the Conservatives 1 for Ottawa Centre.)

32.1/33.9/33.9

Prairies: (Manitoba & Saskatchewan)

11 LIB
10 NDP
7 CON

Quebec:

8 LIB
66 BLOQ
1 CON

Maritimes:

26 LIB
3 NDP
3 CON

North:

2 LIB
1 CON

Totals:

108 LIB
20 NDP
108 CON
66 BQ

Wait. Let me that a bit more.

Let me only comment on the political dynamic I know really ****ing well: Quebec.

BQ winning 66 seats is equivalent to saying that all of a sudden the anglo voters in the province have decided to become hardcore separatists.

Quebec is polarised enough that neither the Liberals nor the BQ can win more than ~45 seats, with a possible independent or two (the conservatives will in all probability not get a single candidate elected in Quebec, given their perception as the new CA).

Also, your figures for Ontario seem ridiculous. I'm predicting a gain for the conservatives of ~10 seats and a gain for the NDP of around 5. Nothing more than an overall loss from the Libs of 20 seats for sure.

Honestly, this is the worst prediction I've ever seen.

[Tingkai]

Welcome back KH. Where have you been?

[KrazyHorse]

CG

[Asher]

Welcome back KH. I cried myself to sleep in your absence from here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let me only comment on the political dynamic I know really ****ing well: Quebec.

BQ winning 66 seats is equivalent to saying that all of a sudden the anglo voters in the province have decided to become hardcore separatists.

Quebec is polarised enough that neither the Liberals nor the BQ can win more than ~45 seats, with a possible independent or two (the conservatives will in all probability not get a single candidate elected in Quebec, given their perception as the new CA).

The BQ won 50+ seats in 1997 when they were the official opposition.

I'm just going by the poll numbers, and trying to adjust for voter shift between the parties.

It's not so much that the BQ is drawing support from the Federalists, but that the Conservative and NDP are gaining support in Quebec. As they draw from the same pool as the Liberals, the BQ pick up more ridings.

So you don't have to pull a single Liberal voter over to the Bloq in order to adjust for the shift. It is enough to depress and shift the Liberal turnout.

Also, your figures for Ontario seem ridiculous. I'm predicting a gain for the conservatives of ~10 seats and a gain for the NDP of around 5. Nothing more than an overall loss from the Libs of 20 seats for sure.

Latest polls predict 65 Liberal seats, 5 NDP seats, and 33 Conservative seats.

I stand by my figures. They are going to be closer and will likely be conservative by the end of the month.

Honestly, this is the worst prediction I've ever seen.

High praise indeed. I would be worried if you approved of my calculations.

[Ben Kenobi]

So the solution to making the federal government more efficient is to add another layer of bureaucracy? You believe that politicians are doing enough work so your solution is to create more of them?

We already are paying for the Senate. It's not a matter of adding another layer of bureaucracy, but rather making use of the government we already have, and making them work for their pay, in the way envisaged at Confederation.

I think having the individual provinces elect their senators would bring a drastic, and much needed reform of our upper house. Rather than a patronage pit, we would have a effective Senate, responsible to the people.

Creating an elected senate will simply slow down the process.

Ah, I didn't see any complaints when the Senate rubberstamped proposals. But when the Senate starts to speak up and delay blue-blooded Liberal bills, heaven forbid!

That's democracy. Would you prefer a dictatorship, so that things pass more quickly? That's what we have under our current PM.

You should be thankful that Harper has signed on to reduce the power of the Prime Minister. Can you imagine how Canada would be with him treating the office the same way as Trudeau, or Chretien?

We could even have constitutional amendments.

More than that, as the American system shows, a senate would not end up being a club for the rich. To get elected to the US senate costs something like $7 million on average. For congress the cost is $700,000.

Yeah, 7 million is poor.

At least they are elected, rather than appointed. I don't think any of our senators are poor off the public purse.

And let's say you have two senators from BC under an elected senate system. How well would a senator from Vancouver be able to represent Prince George or the Peace River area? Not very well.

So we elect one from the Lower Mainland and one from the North or Interior.

Besides, we get more than 2 senators. We should get 8 according to our population.

And who would they look after. The area that has the most votes which means Vancouver would get beneficial treatment over a place like Cranbrook.

Clever, playing off the fact that I'm a regional boy. In any case, we would have 1 from Vancouver and the Island, and 1 from the North/ Interior if we are only apportioned 2 seats.

You got to learn to drop your assumptions. Maybe you should take a closer look at what the NDP stands for and then you would see why your assumptions are wrong.

"If it moves tax it!"

All that money's got to go somewhere. I can see it feeding a larger bureaucracy.

If you are so fiscally conservative, why do you support the NDP? Why not support the party that agrees with you?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The BQ won 50+ seats in 1997 when they were the official opposition.

No, they won 44. The Liberals won 26 and the PC won 5.

I'm just going by the poll numbers, and trying to adjust for voter shift between the parties.

It's not so much that the BQ is drawing support from the Federalists, but that the Conservative and NDP are gaining support in Quebec. As they draw from the same pool as the Liberals, the BQ pick up more ridings.

You've completely disregarded the effect of regionalism. Your analysis is a complete crock. The Conservatives will not have any significant impact upon elections in French ridings. Nobody has forgotten that right now it's Harper (an old Alliancer) running the Conservatives. French Quebecers don't vote for the Alliance or anything connected with the Alliance. Period. In areas where they might have an impact (i.e. Anglo ridings) the BQ polls 3rd and often 4th. Similarly with the NDP. French Quebec does not vote NDP.

Right now in 80% of Quebec's ridings it's a flat out two candidate race. In the other 20% the dynamic is slightly more complicated, but in most of those the Liberals have consistently won (for the last 4 elections) majorities of 70+%. The margin of victory for them has generally been larger than 50%. And uniting the right has dropped support for the PC where they had chances of winning (or did so) last election.

So you don't have to pull a single Liberal voter over to the Bloq in order to adjust for the shift. It is enough to depress and shift the Liberal turnout.

And you have completely missed the basic political dynamic in Quebec. There is no riding I can think of where the Conservatives will play spoiler to allow the Bloc to steal the seat.

If the Bloc wins 60 seats in Quebec it would be a sign of the coming of the Apocalypse.

You really have no ****ing clue what you're talking about here.

This is honestly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You should take an actual look at voting trends regionally instead of attempting to apply some sort of universal prediction method across the country. Regionalism is the single most important factor in Quebec elections. And that's why I say that a win of greater than ~45 seats is almost impossible for either major federal party.

[Ben Kenobi]

Krazy, we are both right, and both wrong.

1993:

Bloc Quebecois 54 13.5%

So it is possible for the BQ to win more than 45 seats.

So with about 14% of the vote nationally, they could win 45 seats. I don't see any significant difference between 14% of Canada then, and 12% in Canada now, given the decline of Quebec's proportion of Canadian population.

66 seats are high, and perhaps the increased BQ support will go disproportionately to the French-speaking regions.

But with the Conservatives polling 10%, and concentrated in Federalist ridings, that is going to split some of the vote.