[RD] Canadian federal election 2019: Voting day is October 21.

[hobbsyoyo]

I read that a study showed Trudeau has delivered on (IIRC) something like 91% of his election promises and that was the best record for a government going back like 5 decades or something. Do people on the ground agree with that?

 

[Synobun]

Pretty sure it's closer to 56%, but still pretty good compared to the Conservatives.

https://trudeaumetre.polimeter.org/

 

[emzie]

Lol at least you guys don't have a dumb law embedded in your constitution because of racism which makes anyone even entitled to dual citizenship ineligible for parliament

Is this enforced?

 

[Patine]

Is this enforced?

At least to a degree. There was news story here in Canada about a newly-elected Australian Senator eligible for Australian-Canadian dual citizenship, and she had to resign. Did you not see that news story several years ago? I don't know, however, how THOROUGHLY or RIGIDLY it's enforced.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

In today's edition of Canadian scandals, it's been revealed that Scheer is a dual citizen between the US and Canada! The shock! The horror! The...

I mean, I get that the Conservatives have targeted dual citizens in the past, but making it an issue when it's a Conservative is pointlessly petty. Just highlight the hypocrisy and move on.

But no, instead, we have people droning on and on about how this is the proof that Scheer doesn't care about Canada, about how he's keeping a backup plan, about how he isn't loyal to Canada... just pure nonsense. And, unfortunately enough, simply normalizing the Conservative record of targeting dual citizenship. They took the bait and now we get to deal with citizenship purity bull from all parties and not just the social yesteryears.

It's not that Scheer has dual citizenship. It's that he's been less than honest about it, and has an absolutely pathetic excuse ("Nobody asked me.").

This issue is yet one more example of Scheer's colossal hypocrisy. In years past he and the Reformacons ragged on Stephan Dion, Michael Ignatieff, Thomas Mulcair, and former GG Michaelle Jean for having dual citizenships (in whatever country). They're also "outraged" that Elizabeth May was born in the U.S. (she's a Canadian citizen now).

Well the fact is that none of the above ever had even close to a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister of Canada (Michaelle Jean renounced her French citizenship prior to taking office as Governor General). It makes me sick to say this, but Scheer does have a realistic chance, and it's really not okay that he is still technically and legally beholden to a foreign government in matters that include whether or not he can be compelled to serve in that foreign government's military.

Scheer is at risk of being coerced into acting against Canada's best interests, because Trump really is that vindictive. It's as simple as "agree to my terms or I'll have them lose your file for renouncing your citizenship." Whether that would happen, I don't know. But it's a possibility, and the Canadian voters need to understand that.

Andrew Scheer was on the news the other night and the anchor asked him whether or not he was really an insurance broker (licensed) or not. Scheer did everything he could to duck the question and kept trying to change the subject. In the end, the anchor gave up and moved on. I mean, WTH? You either are in a profession or you are not. Don't run around saying you are something that you really aren't. If you aren't a licensed insurance broker, you aren't. Just say no, instead of trying to spin it.

The man is a liar, and he's no better than he says Trudeau is.

He's far worse, even if you just take into account the times when he's said that any CPC candidate can run even if they're found to have made racist/homophobic social media posts, as long as they admit it and apologize.

Well, given that Scheer has never apologized for his anti-women's rights and homophobic/anti-same-sex marriage comments, he should have removed himself from the ballot immediately.

Trudeau, for all his faults, did apologize.

My voting card finally arrived. They moved my voting location to just a block away, but advanced voting is for some reason still at the old location, and that's probably my only chance at voting since I'm definitely not keen on standing in a line for hours. Here's hoping I feel well enough next week to make the trek.

My advice is to double-check this. There were numerous instances of "mistakes" in 2015 with the VIC information that could only have happened "accidentally on purpose."

You can always phone one of the candidates' campaign offices and ask for a volunteer to pick you up and drive you to the polling station and home again. It doesn't have to be the candidate for whom you're really voting (since the ballot is secret for the people voting the regular way; I've found out that in my case it won't be secret).

So, how about that Indigenous Peoples case? I mentioned before that if people wanted to pin a true scandal on Trudeau, they'd go with what he's doing with natives. Lo and behold...

And I think people have a pretty good foundation for this. The Conservatives would be no better. They'd be worse, really. But the Liberals have been garbage, and are now rightfully being exposed on just how garbage they've been towards Indigenous citizens. It's embarrassing how the government has treated these people, especially when the solution is so simple.

Oh, which case is it now? There are so many, and I'm waaaay past fed up with Jody Wilson-Raybould's father and other family whining that Trudeau's firing her was meant as a blanket "I hate the Indigenous/First Nations/Aboriginals/Natives/Whatever else they want to be called this week" statement. He fired her for the same reason he would have fired any other cabinet minister who did what she did, and he even gave her extra leeway he wouldn't have given anyone else.

I'm also surprised with the NDP. Jagmeet has maneuvered this situation well. I checked my riding stats and noted that I should vote NDP as the Liberals are neck and neck with the Conservatives (with the NDP having a clear advantage over both), but I think my vote's changed to NDP in general anyways. I'm still uncertain with how vigorously the NDP would adhere to their impromptu platform, but the behaviour has been different enough to make the NDP a true wildcard instead of an arbitrary gamble.

Must be nice to know that the party you really want has a realistic chance of being the one that gets in. I've never had that in a federal election.

That said, I'm wavering on whether to vote NDP or Green. I don't like Singh, but I've never heard of the local Green candidate. I didn't vote Green last time because the candidate lived in Calgary, and was obviously just a name on a ballot and not anyone familiar with Red Deer.

It's a pity that Singh seems to think provinces should be able to veto federal infrastructure projects. I know this is intended to allow provinces to protect themselves from potentially destroying the ecosystem with a pipeline leak, but the way he worded his plank, it could also apply to things like highways, national parks, and numerous other kinds of infrastructure.

Pretty sure it's closer to 56%, but still pretty good compared to the Conservatives.

https://trudeaumetre.polimeter.org/

That list is incorrect in claiming that the MAiD legislation is in the "achieved" category. They only did part of it, and ignored one of the most important things the Supreme Court told them must be included.

At least to a degree. There was news story here in Canada about a newly-elected Australian Senator eligible for Australian-Canadian dual citizenship, and she had to resign. Did you not see that news story several years ago? I don't know, however, how THOROUGHLY or RIGIDLY it's enforced.

I remember reading about that. It sounds rather xenophobic.

 

[Arwon]

At least to a degree. There was news story here in Canada about a newly-elected Australian Senator eligible for Australian-Canadian dual citizenship, and she had to resign. Did you not see that news story several years ago? I don't know, however, how THOROUGHLY or RIGIDLY it's enforced.

She wasn't newly elected, she was two years into her term and it only came to light after another Green realised he had NZ citizenship and she checked. It turned out she was converted by Canadian birthright citizenship thar was repealed mere weeks after her birth.

The two Greens resignations kicked off more scrutiny, a bunch of ppl were found to be affected, and subsequent court determinations held that they all were never validly elected anyway. Senate seats reverted by countback to the next person on the ticket (that's how the Nazi senator who got egged accidentally got the position), Lower House MPs faced by-elections.

It is now known to be constitutionally impossible for someone with non Australian citizenship, even a birthright or other citizenship they never knew about, to be validly elected.

The parties have had to add carefully checking this stuff to their selection process and some people with complex or ambiguous situations (do you have any idea how complex and random nationality law is when considered globally across like 60 years of history?) are practically speaking unable to run.

This actually also applies to anyone drawing a public salary at the time of election... teachers and civil servants and the like cannot be elected either.

 

[Patine]

Must be nice to know that the party you really want has a realistic chance of being the one that gets in. I've never had that in a federal election.

That said, I'm wavering on whether to vote NDP or Green. I don't like Singh, but I've never heard of the local Green candidate. I didn't vote Green last time because the candidate lived in Calgary, and was obviously just a name on a ballot and not anyone familiar with Red Deer.

I closest I ever came to this Federally was 2008, I think, when Ray Martin (NDP) was running against the four-term corrupt slumlord incumbent Peter Goldring who someone I knew who had been on his campaign team in a past election said he was "sleazy and smarmy" and someone who I'd dealt through my work that who'd used to be an *ahem" "working girl" swore he'd been one of her clients when she saw his picture (not naming either source, of course). That was the statistically the closest race in 2008, and Goldring held onto his by a razor-thin margin, and Edmonton East was statistically the poorest riding, in means income, in Alberta at the time.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, I've voted. I didn't get to fill in the ballot myself, because this time around whoever made the rules decided that anyone who is eligible for in-home special ballots must also be incapable of reading and writing.

At least I was able to forego them actually reading me the list of candidates, and just pointed out that I had found the list myself on the Elections Canada website. I had also written out the name of the candidate so they could copy it. I was not allowed to write the name of the candidate on the ballot myself.

To add to this list of absurdities, they said that if I had a complaint, I could fill out an Incident Report. Apparently I'm allowed to do that myself. They expected me to do it right here, but I told them, "You don't have enough time for me to write down everything I want to say. This is going to be an essay." They offered to write it for me (of course ), but we compromised that they filled out the form with my name and contact information and said I could email them my report by tomorrow morning.

At least they didn't take pictures of my ID this time.

Time passes...

The universe must hate me. Windows decided to update right at the time when I was going to submit my incident report to the local Returning Officer. When the update was finished, I discovered that my submission had been deleted. I had to start over.

More time passes...

I got a reply tonight from somebody at Elections Canada that regurgitated the rules I already had read online and that the EC workers read to me in my home. Then I was told that not allowing me to fill in the ballot myself was not a problem because there was someone there to witness the person writing it for me, and that was a guarantee of impartiality.

GIVE ME A <CENSORED> BREAK!

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who should ever see the name of the individual I voted for are myself and the DRO/Poll Clerk team responsible for counting it (and by the time the ballot gets to their step in the process, they don't know it's my ballot; they only know that it's one of however many hundreds or thousands of eligible voters whose names are on the list for this particular polling station).

I'm not worried about the impartiality of the vote-counters. I've worked enough polls myself to know that each ballot can be traced to a specific Deputy Returning Officer, and in case of irregularities, that is the person (plus the Poll Clerk) who are going to be asked some tough questions to ascertain if they made an honest mistake or if they tried to rig the vote at their station. This is something that doesn't tend to happen, as it carries fines and jail time as penalties. Every scrap of paper at a polling station has to be accounted for by the end of the night, and nobody gets to go home before all of them are accounted for (since these people typically work a 14-16-hour day on voting day, they have excellent incentive to get everything done as quickly and as accurately as possible).


If any Canadians here are curious about some of the rules and procedures the various election workers have to follow for different situations, there are various types of Returning Officers' manuals online at www.elections.ca. It's useful information to have, if your situation doesn't fall neatly into one of 3 or 4 different categories of voters. I really had to dig for information for my own situation. Chapter 12.12.1, after a long scroll through the rules for homeless voters, incarcerated voters, ex-pat voters, voters who are currently serving in the military, etc.


Oh, and I watched part of the shouting matchdebate on TV. I want my time back. What a useless exercise that was, since everyone talked at once.

 

[Patine]

So, a funny story from yesterday. I was headed to my sister's for Thanksgiving dinner (she was holding it a couple days early) by taxi, and I was passing by all the homes with party signs on their lawns. Then I saw two houses, side by side, with signs in the style and format and campaign signs on the that were a pinkish colour with the black, stenciled, block letters 'AEFAS' and smaller text underneath I couldn't immediately read. At first I thought, by the appearance of the sign, "ah, this interesting if nothing else. A minor old-school, vanguard, Marxist-Communist revolutionary party must have thrown it's hat in the ring this year." And then I got closer, and the smaller text was an add for a roofing and furnace company who had just done work on those two house.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I recently saw an article about election signs... seems somebody had a sign made up, put it on the lawn, and what it contains is his photo and the words "I'm not running for anything. I just wanted a sign."

So... Justin Trudeau wore a bullet-proof vest to his campaign event in Mississauga, after receiving what the RCMP considered to be "credible" death threats.

It's nice of Scheer to say this is unacceptable. I hope he told his people to find out who among his supporters or Bernier's supporters would do such a thing.

Another thing that popped up in today's news: Jagmeet Singh is open to forming a coalition with the non-CPC parties in case Scheer wins a minority.

 

[Synobun]

I saw my first Liberal attack ad on Saturday. It was garbage. These really should be banned.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

He's far worse, even if you just take into account the times when he's said that any CPC candidate can run even if they're found to have made racist/homophobic social media posts, as long as they admit it and apologize.

Well, given that Scheer has never apologized for his anti-women's rights and homophobic/anti-same-sex marriage comments, he should have removed himself from the ballot immediately.

I couldn't find comments made by him specifically, what did he say? I did see his line about CPC candidates being able to run despite bad comments/posts.

Also, do we really want a standard where anybody who said something untoward, no matter how long ago, is considered incapable of governance? Shouldn't the massive weight of their actual voting choices/results matter the most?

The dual citizenship thing is more of an issue. Though what could USA do if he simply refused anything like US draft on the grounds that he has duty in a foreign country, and then stays in said foreign country? I guess it could renounce citizenship (or he could), but is there legal precedent for this?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

In my opinion, someone with dual citizenship should be disqualified from holding any government office in Canada. It's a conflict of interest. Plain and simple.

 

[Synobun]

How positively nationalistic.

 

[AdrienIer]

Yeah I've never quite understood that dislike for dual citizenship. If someone cares enough for their country that they want to hold a political office there, it's likely that their loyalty is unquestionable.

 

[Patine]

Yeah I've never quite understood that dislike for dual citizenship. If someone cares enough for their country that they want to hold a political office there, it's likely that their loyalty is unquestionable.

Unless they're a spy, infiltrator, political saboteur, separatist or secessionist playing the system, sower of discord and division or promoter of lack of confidence for a nation or group whose interests are adverse, agent of subordinating national interests to a foreign power, or just a shameless sell-out. But otherwise, you're probably right in most cases.

 

[Synobun]

Unless they're a spy, infiltrator, political saboteur, separatist or secessionist playing the system, sower of discord and division or promoter of lack of confidence for a nation or group whose interests are adverse, agent of subordinating national interests to a foreign power, or just a shameless sell-out. But otherwise, you're probably right in most cases.

None of those require dual citizenship. In fact, there's a head of state close by who likely fits the bill on a couple of those and he has a single citizenship.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In my opinion, someone with dual citizenship should be disqualified from holding any government office in Canada. It's a conflict of interest. Plain and simple.

One could reasonably make a policy whereby anybody voted in must renounce foreign citizenship before taking the position. I'm surprised Canada doesn't have one.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I saw my first Liberal attack ad on Saturday. It was garbage. These really should be banned.

Was it the barbershop one? At first I couldn't tell if it was an attack ad or a promo for next week's episode of This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

(this is when I wish Rick Mercer hadn't retired; his political satire is light-years better than 22 Minutes, and they should really dig up and revive John Morgan and Roger Abbott of Royal Canadian Air Farce)

I couldn't find comments made by him specifically, what did he say? I did see his line about CPC candidates being able to run despite bad comments/posts.

Also, do we really want a standard where anybody who said something untoward, no matter how long ago, is considered incapable of governance? Shouldn't the massive weight of their actual voting choices/results matter the most?

Canada is a diverse country, and the sheer levels of racism and intolerance displayed this time around is beyond disgusting (pun not intended to be funny, but because there's no other word that's apt).

The criticism of Scheer is based on numerous things he's said and done, ranging from his judgmental anti-abortion/choice stance and his opposition to same-sex marriage (marriage is for the purpose of children, therefore since two same-sex people can't procreate together, they shouldn't have the right to marry), and fast-forward to the current election when he said he wouldn't remove candidates with bigoted social media posts as long as they owned up to what they said and apologized... yet he won't cut the same slack for anyone from any other party.

He's a hypocrite who is receiving considerable help and mentoring from his former boss, Stephen Harper, who in turn is connected to neoNazi groups and openly stated during his last term as PM that the very real problem of the great number of missing/murdered native women in Canada is "not high on my radar".

The dual citizenship thing is more of an issue. Though what could USA do if he simply refused anything like US draft on the grounds that he has duty in a foreign country, and then stays in said foreign country? I guess it could renounce citizenship (or he could), but is there legal precedent for this?

He claims that he is in the process of renouncing his citizenship, but he only got around to doing that this summer. He should have done it years ago, when he first joined Harper's inner circle (I'm not sure when he became Speaker of the House, but that is also a reason why someone with dual citizenship should not be Speaker, since that position carries considerable authority in Parliament over who is allowed to speak, what they're allowed to say (if they break the rules), when they're allowed to say it, and over what rulings may apply on points of order and privilege).

In my opinion, someone with dual citizenship should be disqualified from holding any government office in Canada. It's a conflict of interest. Plain and simple.

We don't often agree, but this is one instance when it's happened. I know that Thomas Mulcair had what he considered a valid excuse (his wife and kids travel on a French passport so he decided he'd rather do that too; he has French citizenship via marriage to his wife), but when you're trying to become the Prime Minister, dual citizenship should never be allowed. I feel the same for any MP.

I can see the rationale for provincial politics, as well, now that the provincial politicians are regularly trotting around the world "to promote trade."

Yeah I've never quite understood that dislike for dual citizenship. If someone cares enough for their country that they want to hold a political office there, it's likely that their loyalty is unquestionable.

So you've never met an opportunistic politician, or an outright crooked one? We have an ex-Prime Minister who would be in prison now if not for the "Right Honourable" in front of his name (I'm referring to Brian Mulroney). Because he was the PM with a boatload of privileges, he gets a pass while others don't.

The problem with Scheer possibly winning and being in the middle of the process of renouncing his American citizenship is that it means the U.S. government has a legal hold on him, which is unacceptable. He's not free of them until this process is completely finished. I can see Trump being that vindictive to tell the bureaucrats to lose Scheer's documents or make him start the process all over again, if he says or does something Trump doesn't approve of. Trump is just petty enough to do it.


Another point about election ads: I've just seen TWO TV ads by the Green Party. This is the first time I've ever seen them advertise on TV. It was nice to see an ad that wasn't attacking anybody.

The latest in my crusade for disabled voters' rights: I found out today that Red Deer Transit is offering free rides to everyone on election day, providing they use the regular transit buses. Rides to the polls on the Action Bus (used by disabled people) are not included. I'm waiting for a phone call from them to explain why (they probably don't even know, but will come out with some excuse).

 

[Arwon]

The issue some people have with with dual citizenship would probably seem more rational if these same politicians didn't swear loyalty to a foreign monarch who pretty much has firing power over them.