Election 2015

[Privateer]

This report, which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a wee bit less than illuminating:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-candidate-accuses-privy-council-office-defence-of-meddling-in-campaign/article26586397/

Can anyone shed any light on what might have happened?

More from "Cumberland News Now":

AMHERST – Bill Casey has filed a complaint against the Department of National Defence and the Privy Council Office alleging they conspired to prevent him from going into the Col. James Layton Ralston Armoury last week.

The Liberal candidate for Cumberland-Colchester planned to host a press conference there to ask the Conservatives when they are going to live up to a promise made five years ago to finish repairs to the century-old building.

“On arrival at the armoury, DND personnel in Amherst and from Halifax instructed me to leave the premises immediately as I was in contravention of the Canada Elections Act…and that I knew it,” Casey said. “I was instructed to leave the premises three different times.”

When Darrell Cole of the Amherst News and Citizen-Record arrived to cover Casey’s statement he and was told by the Liberal candidate that the building was closed to the candidate and the media.

A caretaker came out to tell Casey that an official from DND in Halifax wanted to speak to him. Cole followed Casey into the building to a back office and attempted to take a photo of Casey on the phone, but the caretaker said photos and video were not allowed.

When someone behind Cole said something to the caretaker, the office door was slammed in the reporter’s face.

Casey later emerged from the office to say that he and the media were being asked to leave the property.

When Casey was unable to find any clause in the Canada Elections Act which would prevent him from being in this public place, he contacted DND for clarification of exactly where this clause exists. 

He said that later in the day DND changed their story. Casey said he was contacted by DND Halifax and told that it wasn’t the Canada Elections Act but the department was taking direction from the Privy Council Office.

“Section 486(2) of the Canada Elections Act says anyone who refuses to give a candidate access to a building open to the public is guilty of an offense. This is exactly what happened on Tuesday, Sept.22, ” Casey said. “Every effort was made to prevent the condition of this building from being made public. “

Casey has asked Marc Mayrand, the chief electoral officer of Canada ,to investigate these accusations against DND and the PCO. 

Link: http://www.cumberlandnewsnow.com/News/Local/2015-09-29/article-4293375/Casey-files-complaint-over-treatment-at-armoury/1

 

[George Wallace]

George, do you have a link to that website?  I would like to share it on Facebook.

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11143570_752413001537231_1770463460069663329_n.jpg?oh=fa243381c3a06ad19c0006f08dd2e2d6&oe=568EC0DD

 

[Lumber]

This report, which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a wee bit less than illuminating:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-candidate-accuses-privy-council-office-defence-of-meddling-in-campaign/article26586397/

Can anyone shed any light on what might have happened?

I feel I can shed some light on what happened.

Right now, the Defence team is trying to appear completely impartial with regard to the election. Shortly after the bass Writ dropped, the CDS issued an order that all public affairs activities are to cease until the election is over. Being the over-cautious organization that we are, that has the formations (well, the Navy at least) paranoid that anytime they step out into the public, they might be seen as being political. Right now, every event going on at my unit that takes place outside of our unit (other than training) has to be vetted by ADM(PA), RCN-PA, and a few others; even the most innocent of events they are making us get approval for and making us inform 3 if not 4 different levels of PA personal above our unit.

So, my explanation would be, they saw a political candidate trying to use a defence establishment to push their political agenda, and the CAF memebers there panicked and kicked him out.

By the way, since when is a military establishment a "public space"?

 

[ballz]

QR&O 19.44 sheds some light...

19.44 - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CANDIDATURE FOR OFFICE

(1) For the purposes of this article:

"political advertising" (publicité à caractère politique)
means advertising, the purpose of which is to gain support for the election of a candidate for federal, provincial or municipal office or to gain support for, or to encourage some action in support of, the maintenance or change of a policy that is the responsibility of government at the federal, provincial or municipal level;
"political canvassing" (sollicitation politique)
means an activity by which an individual approaches another individual to gain support for the election of a candidate for federal, provincial or municipal office or to gain support for, or to encourage some action in support of, the maintenance or change of a policy that is the responsibility of government at the federal, provincial or municipal level;
"political meeting" (réunion politique)
means a meeting that is planned for a specific time and place and is designed to promote political action by those attending;
"political speech" (discours politique)
means a speech, the purpose of which is to promote political action by those to whom it is addressed.

(2) Except as otherwise authorized under the Canada Elections Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter E-2) or any other statute of the Parliament of Canada, a commanding officer shall ensure that any activity that takes place on a defence establishment, including a base or unit, under his command does not affect the actual or perceived political neutrality of the Canadian Forces and, in particular, no commanding officer shall:

except as provided in paragraph (6), allow a political meeting to be held or a political speech to be delivered on a defence establishment;
allow the display of political advertising anywhere on a defence establishment in areas exposed to public view; or
except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5), allow political canvassing or the distribution of political advertising, other than by mail, anywhere on a defence establishment.
(3) Subject to paragraph (7), paragraph (2) does not apply to any activity that takes place within the confines of a married quarter in Canada.

(4) A commanding officer shall permit political canvassing and the distribution of political advertising to single quarters and married quarters if, having regard to security and privacy requirements, the canvassers or distributors can be given access to such quarters.

(5) The Chief of the Defence Staff may authorize the broadcast, through Canadian Forces broadcasting facilities, of free-time political broadcasts.

(6) In exceptional circumstances, and where no practical alternative location can be found, the Minister may authorize the use of a defence establishment or any part thereof for the conduct of a political meeting or the delivery of a political speech.

(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:

take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.

( 8 ) No officer or non-commissioned member shall organize or take part in a political meeting on a defence establishment.

(M)

NOTES

(A) Examples of meetings or speeches that might be considered to be political meetings or political speeches are those that are designed to:

solicit votes for a candidate in a federal, provincial or municipal election;
solicit funds to support a candidate in a federal, provincial or municipal election or a political party; or
organize a lobby to maintain or change public policy at the federal, provincial or municipal level.
(B) An example of a meeting or speech that might not be considered to be a political meeting or political speech is a meeting or speech that is designed to impart information but does not require or expect any specific solicited political action to follow as a result.

(C)

- minor mod edit to clean up #8 in list -

 

[The Bread Guy]

This says it all for me:

.... The Liberal candidate for Cumberland-Colchester planned to host a press conference (at the Armoury) to ask the Conservatives when they are going to live up to a promise made five years ago to finish repairs to the century-old building ....

No matter which party, they can't be using the military as a partisan backdrop, full stop.

Being the over-cautious organization that we are, that has the formations (well, the Navy at least) paranoid that anytime they step out into the public, they might be seen as being political .... So, my explanation would be, they saw a political candidate trying to use a defence establishment to push their political agenda, and the CAF memebers there panicked and kicked him out refused to let a military establishment be used as a partisan political backdrop ....

FTFY - they may have been following this set of rules, too. 

Is it against the Elections Act, though?  I see a lot about running elections and the paperwork required of candidates, but I don't see much about campaigning.

QR&O 19.44 sheds some light...

Thanks for including that.

 

[Edward Campbell]

For those who believe that provincial party past performance might predict how the federal party might govern, a newish group called Aha! offers a study* (of sorts, the methodology is provided and it is not overly rigorous, but I've seen a lot worse) that suggests that, historically, for the past 35 years, Conservatives (Mike Harris, Bill Vander Zalm, Ralph Klein and others) have offered the (fiscally) best performances (there's only one non-Conservative (Catherine Callbeck (PEI 1993-96) in the top 10) while the bottom of the heap is very slightly (5:4) dominated by Liberal, NDP and PQ premiers.

____
* Study is a PDF file available at the website by clicking on Read The Study

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is not a Liberal problem or, even, Mr Marwan's problem ... it is a Canadian problem. I suspect that many, many Canadians (possibly, even probably a majority of Canadians) believe that Canada fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan and that Prime Minister Harper sent the CF there both times.

The media suggests, ever so subtly,that Afghanistan was "Harper's War." Also, it is true that Prime Minister Harper has, recently, sent the CF to fight an air campiagn that includes Iraq, and it's true that Stephen Harper advocated, publicly, for Canada to participate in Iraq when President George W Bush engaged there ... but we never did. (We didn't even offer the US some political support in the UN which was, in the end, all they ever asked from us.) My guess is that most high school students think that Prime Minister Harper sent the CF to Afghanistan in ... well, 90% of them would have no idea of when (or why) the most recent Afghanistan War (our Afghanistan War) happened. Ditto for "Bush's Iraq War."

It isn't a question of memory or of a 500 years old historical record; it is that the media does, as it always has, write the first draft of history, but now, in the 21st century, no one bothers to read the second or third drafts ...

 

[Good2Golf]

Bill Vander Zalm a Conservative? ???

 

[Edward Campbell]

Bill Vander Zalm a Conservative? ???

The study grouped the BC Socreds in with "small C conservatives." There grouping is:

  Small “c” conservative (blue): Conservative/Progressive Conservative/Social Credit/Saskatchewan/BC Liberal parties

  Small “l” liberal (red): Liberal parties

  Social democratic (orange): New Democratic parties and Parti Quebecois

 

[Remius]

Latest Nanos poll.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

NDP seems to continue its tumble. I think to the LPC's benefit.  If Mr. mulcair ends up as leader of the Third Party, he will likely resign.  Mr. Trudeau will only be in that situation if he comes in third.  1st loser is still better than what they had. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Latest Nanos poll.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

NDP seems to continue its tumble. I think to the LPC's benefit.  If Mr. mulcair ends up as leader of the Third Party, he will likely resign.  Mr. Trudeau will only be in that situation if he comes in third.  1st loser is still better than what they had.

Looking a bit behind those numbers:

    Atlantic Canada (32 seats): Advantage Liberals;

    Quebec              (78 seats): Advantage NDP;

    Ontario            (121 seats): Advantage Liberals;

    Prairies              (62 seats): Advantage Conservatives; and

    BC                      (42 seats): Tie.

    Overall:                                Advantage Liberals

 

[Lumber]

Looking a bit behind those numbers:

    Atlantic Canada (32 seats): Advantage Liberals;

    Quebec              (78 seats): Advantage NDP;

    Ontario            (121 seats): Advantage Liberals;

    Prairies              (62 seats): Advantage Conservatives; and

    BC                      (42 seats): Tie.

    Overall:                                Advantage Liberals

So basically we're back to the 1990s / early 2000s, but the Bloc has been substituted with the NDP.

 

[Remius]

So basically we're back to the 1990s / early 2000s, but the Bloc has been substituted with the NDP.

For now.  Who knows next week.  But, what must concern the CPC is the gains the LPC seem to be making in Ontario.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Further to polls and polling, Lysiane Gagnon, writing in the Globe and Mail, suggests that Prime Minister Harper is "campaigning on the back of an isolated and vulnerable minority, which must be the height of cynicism." But, she says,  "the tactic pays," [because] "this matter, as objectively trivial as it is when compared with other election issues, led to the most heated exchange during last Thursday’s French-language debate." Her column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/whats-at-work-behind-opinion-poll-results/article26587805/

What’s at work behind opinion poll results

LYSIANE GAGNON
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Sep. 30, 2015

Who can trust opinion polls, after they so blatantly failed to predict the results of so many recent elections, from the 2012 defeat of Wildrose in Alberta to the 2013 victory of the British Columbia Liberals to the recent election of David Cameron’s majority government in Britain?

One thing is sure, though: In this federal election campaign, as in many others, the conservative (or rightist) vote might be severely underestimated by pollsters. The reason is that people who opt for the conservative side are more discreet than others, in part because their choice is not the flavour of the day – nor is it popular among the pundits and the urban media. They often pretend to be undecided although they’re not; conservative voters also tend to be older. And older people vote in greater numbers.

In Quebec for example, all recent provincial elections brought surprising good news for the right, a.k.a. the Quebec Liberal Party. Even when it was defeated, the QLPs’ share of the vote turned out to be much bigger than expected. In 1994, the Liberals lost power but received 44.3-per-cent support, only 0.3 per cent less than the winning Parti Québécois. In 1998, the PQ government was re-elected but with a smaller vote (42.8 per cent) than the QLP (43.5 per cent). In 2012, a tired and unpopular Charest government managed to deprive the Parti Québécois of a majority.

So the Harper government might benefit from the silent support of a group largely ignored by the pollsters or erroneously labelled as “undecided.” Of course, it also helps that the two main opposition parties are fighting for the same clientele. But now another element has been introduced in the campaign, marking the triumph of sheer demagogy over human decency: the niqab affair.

As early as March, the Prime Minister’s Office commissioned an opinion poll, by Léger, on the wearing of the face-covering veil at citizenship ceremonies. The opposition was flabbergasting: 82 per cent across Canada, 93 per cent in Quebec, 85 per cent among people older than 55 and, strangely enough, 76 per cent among those with a university education.

Never mind that there is a very small number of women who wear a niqab in Canada, and that the ones who do so at a citizenship ceremony are identified, in private, by a female agent before the event. The idea that a woman could hide her face on such a solemn occasion carries a powerful symbolic charge, and the Conservatives obviously planned to exploit the issue during the campaign.

So the Conservatives are now, in effect, campaigning on the back of an isolated and vulnerable minority, which must be the height of cynicism. But the tactic pays. This matter, as objectively trivial as it is when compared with other election issues, led to the most heated exchange during last Thursday’s French-language debate. Even though Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe has always eschewed identity politics, he eagerly jumped on the anti-niqab bandwagon in the hope of salvaging his sinking ship.

An Abacus Data survey released this week shows the New Democrats at 30-per-cent support in Quebec, down 17 percentage points in the province since the pollster’s Sept. 11 survey, a drop that can be partly attributed to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s position on the niqab. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has the same position but his party is suffering less (with provincial support at 24 per cent) because the Liberals are strong in non-francophone ridings, where the opposition to the niqab is less strident, while the NDP finds most of its support in francophone areas.

The Orange Wave still comes first in Quebec, but it has lost a great deal of its force.

I agree with Mme Gagnon that this issues will not hurt the Liberals in their bedrock base of non-Francophone ridings in the Montreal area, but it will play out against both the LPC and NDP in most (55+) of the ridings that are solidly Francophone. The question is: cui bono? Which party, BQ or CPC, can ride this "objectively trivial" issue to a few more seats? If the advantage lies with the Conservatives then is it enough to win say, two or three or even four or five additional seats?

 

[Edward Campbell]

So basically we're back to the 1990s / early 2000s, but the Bloc has been substituted with the NDP.

I don't think so ... I highly doubt that either the NDP or the Liberals can reproduce the 1993 or 2011 results in Quebec (54 seats for the BQ in '93, 59 seats for the NDP in 2011's "Orange Crush") or the Liberal Party's 1993, '97 or 2000 results (98 to 101 seats) in Ontario.

My guess is that Ontario will split something like 60~40~20, and Quebec will split 40~20~10~10.

 

[Lumber]

An aside; I asked my friend who he was voting for. He said he wasn't voting; not because he didn't think it was important, but because he was so uninformed (and had no intention of doing the research) that it would be an unfair stab in the dark.

I told him that I'd be more than happy to educate him, to which he replied something like "Tell you what I'll do for YOU. You tell me who YOU are going to vote for, and I'll vote the opposite. With that promise in mind, you now don't have to vote, as I'm nullifying your vote."

His logic is a little flawed, but I found the implication interesting.

 

[Kirkhill]

An aside; I asked my friend who he was voting for. He said he wasn't voting; not because he didn't think it was important, but because he was so uninformed (and had no intention of doing the research) that it would be an unfair stab in the dark.

I told him that I'd be more than happy to educate him, to which he replied something like "Tell you what I'll do for YOU. You tell me who YOU are going to vote for, and I'll vote the opposite. With that promise in mind, you now don't have to vote, as I'm nullifying your vote."

His logic is a little flawed, but I found the implication interesting.

And back to Dr. Bill Murray -  for many "It Just Doesn't Matter".  They are not unhappy with the status quo.

 

[The Bread Guy]

They are not unhappy with the status quo.

Or at least not unhappy enough/not motivated enough to cast a ballot  :facepalm:

 

[Kirkhill]

Or at least not unhappy enough/not motivated enough to cast a ballot  :facepalm:

For them the "status quo" allows for them to live their lives without being bothered about who runs government.  They just don't feel enough pain/pleasure from a source that they identify as government for it to make any difference in their lives.

They're happy.

 

[Lumber]

Or at least not unhappy enough/not motivated enough to cast a ballot  :facepalm:

IMO, the only people who get motivated to go out and vote are those that pay attention to Politics. It's politics for the sake of Politics. Canadians enjoy an amazing standard of living; life in this country is nothing short of amazing when compared to most of the world. Most the things that get peoples' blood flowing and make them want to vote are things that don't affect the majority of Canadians on a day to day basis. For example, the niqab, foreign aide in Iraq and Syria, military intervention in Iraq and Syria, the Keystone XL pipeline, bill C-51, bill C-24. These are rousing issues to anyone who is paying attention, but since they don't touch the day to day lives of the majority of Canadians, they can go completely un-noticed unless you are following Politics.

If you really want to increase voter turn out, make an issue out of cell-phone plans, car insurance premiums, and the legalization of marijuana.