The Canadian Election Thread. (Or maybe not...)

[Spoons]

@Sam_Stone

But thanks for putting us in our place. We’ll just stay here in Alberta so you don’t have to get your panties in a twist.

Aw, man! Does this mean I don’t get to wear my cowboy hat to Toronto any more?

[Uzi]

@RickJay

You responded to a respectful, reflective and honest post with an amount of (rather pointless) snark that suggests my concerns are valid ones.

Your concerns?

A person admits that they’re really disappointed by the election result, something we’ve all felt, does it in a mature and insightful manner in terms of explaining how they feel, and you come back with that? What did you accomplish there, exactly?

The sky didn’t fall, nor is it likely to. Evil Incarnate wasn’t elected to parliament. I guess if you are used to playing soccer as a kid where they don’t keep score, you’re not capable of understanding what it is to ‘lose’, but otherwise, Little Miss Princess, will just have to suck it up and bear it. What response should he expect when he says, “I’m extremely disappointed and unsure of what to do from here”? Maybe I misinterpreted his tone, but it sounds more like whining than respectful. ‘Poor me’.

Okay, here is what he should do. Make sure his party next time doesn’t have such a pathetic leader that was parachuted into place after spending 25 years outside of Canada. Make sure they know enough not to force an election that they are pretty much guaranteed to lose in the hopes of doing an end run to power in anticipation parliament returned the same head count after the election. He didn’t look like he forced the election because of what was good for Canada, he looked like he did it to make himself PM. Maybe I’m wrong, but that is what it looked like to me and probably to a lot of others.

If you read my tone as gloating, I’m not. I’m just a little pissed that the insinuation is that the party I support, and the 39% of his fellow Canadians who voted Conservative, will now send Brown Shirts to kick down doors and paint big 'L’s on people’s windows.

[Muffin]

@Frank

I believe you, and it is funny. Somebody never imagined they’d be elected.

She is an assistant university pub manager who does not speak French well and was on a trip to Vegas during the election. Her Vegas pics are still up on her facebook page, including the NSFW painted titties pic (though sadly not her titties). [spoiler]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/224606_196393887072589_196281490417162_577466_4278415_n.jpg[/spoiler]

Too bad Mrs. Grundy holds so much sway in our society.

[Northern_Piper]

@The_Tooth

Cat Whisperer
Well, we can, but no one’s gonna listen.

So all the parties will have to get their own funding instead of sucking the public money tit. I still don’t get why that’s such a terrible th

You do pay attention to American politics, yes? Our policies are now for sale to the highest bidder. Appalling.

Here are the contribution limits, as posted by Elections Canada:

What are the new limits to contributions?

New contribution limits have been set for individuals.

Only an individual who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada may make political contributions:

[ul]
[li] up to $1,000* in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party[/li]
[li] up to $1,000* in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party[/li]
[li] up to $1,000* in total to a candidate in an election who does not represent a registered party[/li]
[li] up to $1,000* in total to the contestants in a particular leadership contest[/ul][/li]
In addition, a person who is a nomination contestant or a candidate of a registered party may give contributions that do not exceed $1,000 to his or her own campaign without it counting toward his or her contribution limits.

A candidate who is not a candidate for a registered party may give contributions that do not exceed $1,000 to his or her own campaign without it counting toward his or her contribution limits.

A person who is a leadership contestant may give contributions that do not exceed $1,000 to his or her own campaign without it counting toward his or her contribution limits.

For more details, see Information Sheet 2: Limits on Contributions by Individuals under the Canada Elections Act.

So, only real people, either Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada, can make political contributions, and those limits apply to the candidates themselves. No unions, no corporations, no foreigners.

And, that’s a maximum of $2,000 per year per person for political parties in ordinary electoral cycles; a maximum of $1,000 for a donation to an independent candidate; and a maximum of $1,000 for leadership campaigns.

How does that amount to policies being on sale to the highest bidder? It’s not an auction where you can just keep raising the bid - everyone has the same ceiling.

[Northern_Piper]

@RickJay

The electoral process south of the border is marked by unlimited SPENDING, not funding. The U.S. has donation limit laws, in fact, but lacks election spending laws.

But if you have very strict contribution laws, that has the effect of limiting spending. Reduced input => reduced output. So the Canadian approach also limits spending.

Plus, the donation laws in the US are not nearly as strict as in Canada, in my understanding. For example, (and I’m open to correction from any of our American posters) they don’t apply at all if a candidate doesn’t accept any federal matching funds. So Barack Obama, because he was such a cash machine in 2007-2008, didn’t need to take any federal funds, and therefore wasn’t subject to the contribution rules.

[Northern_Piper]

@RickJay

It’s not a coincidence that the Liberals loved the old system enough to create it when they were the ones getting the most votes.

Actually, the Liberals took quite a hit when Chétien brought in the new system towarrds the end of his time in office. The Liberals were the champions of corporate fund-raising, raising far more from corporate donations than other parties. Chrétien ended that, and brought in a system that favours the Conservatives, who have always been better at grass-roots fund-raising. I remember reading in the papers at the time that he took considerable heat from inside his party for doing it, but was able to sell it to the caucus because of concerns that corporate donations could lead to a situation where the corporate donors had more financial sway than voters.

And, the results of the past three electoral cycles show that the concerns of the worried Liberals were correct - the new system has favoured the Conservatives over the Liberals, who have never since raised as much money as they did under the old system, where corporate donations were allowed.

[Northern_Piper]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I would not be surprised to see the Conservatives slowly (or not) raise the $1000 limit. This, combined with the fact that it is quite easy for an individual to circumvent this limit (ie give a $1000 “bonus” to your 50 employees, with the “wink wink” proviso that it be contributed to the conservatives)

Sure, quite easy to do, so long as you don’t mind breaching s. 405.2 of of the Canada Elections Act:

No circumvention of limits
405.2 (1) No person or entity shall

(a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the prohibition under subsection 404(1) or a limit set out in subsection 405(1) or section 405.31; or
(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose.

No concealing of source of contribution

(2) No person or entity shall

(a) conceal, or attempt to conceal, the identity of the source of a contribution governed by this Act; or
(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose.

Which are federal offences, contrary to s. 497(3)(f.13) and (f.14) and (f.15) of the Canada Elections Act:

497. (3) Every person is guilty of an offence who
…
(f.13) being an individual, wilfully contravenes subsection 405(1) (exceeding contribution limit);

(f.14) being a person or entity, knowingly contravenes subsection 405.2(1) (circumventing contribution limit);

(f.15) being a person or entity, knowingly contravenes subsection 405.2(2) (concealing source of contribution);

which carry punishments of:

500(5) Every person who is guilty of an offence under any of subsections … 497(3) … is liable

indent on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both.[/indent

Other than that, not a problem…

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Northern_Piper

Sure, quite easy to do, so long as you don’t mind breaching s. 405.2 of of the Canada Elections Act:
Other than that, not a problem…

Not really much of a problem - at least for [some in the 2008 election](And while there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it appears third-party advertisers played a disproportionate role in the riding. If nothing else, the events raise questions about the effectiveness of current laws and enforcement efforts.):

And while there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it appears third-party advertisers played a disproportionate role in the riding.

If nothing else, the events **raise questions about the effectiveness of current laws **and enforcement efforts.

At least Gary Lunn is not there anymore to flout the laws

[Bryan_Ekers]

Better to have some flouters than just discard the law entirely.

[Sam_Stone]

@Northern_Piper

But if you have very strict contribution laws, that has the effect of limiting spending. Reduced input => reduced output. So the Canadian approach also limits spending.

One big difference: A system that allows unlimited spending but limited contributions is going to skew the field towards very wealthy people who can self-fund a campaign. You get a lot more Michael Bloombergs and Donald Trumps.

[Implicit]

@Sam_Stone

One big difference: A system that allows unlimited spending but limited contributions is going to skew the field towards very wealthy people who can self-fund a campaign. You get a lot more Michael Bloombergs and Donald Trumps.

Which is why candidates are treated the same as individuals in Canada, and limited to the same $1000 contribution (extra $1000 for a leadership campaign).

[Cat_Whisperer]

I’m still reading about contribution law changes, and I’m not entirely sure what they would mean for Canadian politicians going forward (I don’t speak Legalese fluently), but this is what I do want:

• Limited public moneys going towards political parties/candidates.
• Limited private moneys going towards political parties/candidates.
• Parties being expected to raise their own money.

I DO NOT want an American style system where you buy yourself politicians, elections, and government positions. I hope what we have (or will probably soon get) will accomplish these things, without loopholes that only the rich can exploit.

[dhkendall]

@Sam_Stone

The page has been changed. Earlier in the day the pictures were all pictures of Vegas and of her partying in Vegas, which is why I said ‘party on’. But whatever… If you want to believe it’s fake, that’s fine. I don’t really care. I’m not looking to attack her, or the NDP. I just thought it was funny.

By the way, what would constitute a cite for a link to a facebook page? Am I supposed to get a sworn affidavit from someone that it’s real?

@Frank

I believe you, and it is funny. Somebody never imagined they’d be elected.

Which to me, is the telling point here. Quebec has re-engaged, and has done so by an overwhelming margin. Let’s hope that neither the NDP nor the Rest of Canada blows this opportunity.

The thing that twinged my BS-meter was the following:

[quote=“Ruth Ellen Brosseau”'s Facebook page]
Activities: poker, black jack, vacation, bar, running for MP and not giving a fuck
[/quote]

(emphasis mine). I think, even if the NDP didn’t expect her to win, they would have had something to say about that, especially when the NDP’s Quebec fortunes started turning around. (Plus, those activities are her “most famous ones”, she took a vacation during the campaign, but I doubt that she likes to take a vacation all the time (especially since she has/had a pretty demanding day job as the manager of a campus pub), it’d be like listing Nero’s favourite activity as “fiddling”.)

Finally, the other things that twinge the BS-meter is that it was created just this week, and “her” French seems to be a lot better than what the media gives her credit for.

I will agree, though, it is funny. But fake as all getout.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

@Uzi

I guess you could put a rope around your neck and end it all, but that is bit of an over-reaction, don’t you think?

I was thinking more along the lines of becoming a voting member of the Liberal party, despite how busy I am in the rest of my life. Perhaps it is time to serve.

[Northern_Piper]

@Sam_Stone

One big difference: A system that allows unlimited spending but limited contributions is going to skew the field towards very wealthy people who can self-fund a campaign. You get a lot more Michael Bloombergs and Donald Trumps.

Implicit already replied to this point, but it’s also covered by the extract from the Canada Elections FAQ which I posted earlier:

In addition, a person who is a nomination contestant or a candidate of a registered party may give contributions that do not exceed $1,000 to his or her own campaign without it counting toward his or her contribution limits.

So the candidate gets to donate $1000 to his/her own campaign, in addition to the campaign limits that apply to all. The ability to contribute an extra $1000 isn’t going to give any Canadian Bloomberg or Trump much of an advantage.

I said earlier that Canada has stricter campaign contribution rules than in the US. This is simply one example of it. Put strict limits on how much can be contributed, and you automatically are restricting funding.

[Northern_Piper]

sorry - that last line should read: “Put strict limits on how much can be contributed, and you automatically are restricting spending.”

[Northern_Piper]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Not really much of a problem - at least for some in the 2008 election:

link doesn’t work - could you re-post? thanks.

[mnemosyne]

@dhkendall

Finally, the other things that twinge the BS-meter is that it was created just this week, and “her” French seems to be a lot better than what the media gives her credit for.

I will agree, though, it is funny. But fake as all getout.

Yeah, the French on that Facebook page is way too good to be her, since she apparently doesn’t even speak it. I was in Brownies in Québec, and even I forgot the name “Jeanettes”, since it’s the name used in France: Girl Guides of Canada and Guides Québec calls them Brownies now, even in French. Also, the phrasing of the photo captions is definitely from a native French speaker…I struggle to imagine someone writing “on s’en criss” if they don’t speak the language!

[Muffin]

I think you are right. Her Facebook page set out: “Activities
poker, black jack, vacation, bar, running for MP and not giving a fuck”

[antonio107]

@Muffin

She is an assistant university pub manager who does not speak French well and was on a trip to Vegas during the election. Her Vegas pics are still up on her facebook page, including the NSFW painted titties pic (though sadly not her titties). [spoiler]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/224606_196393887072589_196281490417162_577466_4278415_n.jpg[/spoiler]

Too bad Mrs. Grundy holds so much sway in our society.

I’d like to add that, as a soon to be graduate of Carleton, having spent seven years there, that the number of times Olivers has lost its liquour license for selling booze to minors in my time is probably in the double digits.

As well, they consistently lose TONS of money despite having the most simple of business models: our client base lives 100 meters from us, and has a substantial cash line from mummy and daddy. Finally, when they remodeled it, they got rid of their patios, and made the interior look like a Swiss Chalet. I wouldn’t brag about being part of the administration of that place. Mike’s Place (the graduate student bar)? Yeah, I’d be more inclined to put that on the CV.