The "Longest Election Campaign in Modern Canada" Thread

The government is not dissolved - Parliament is dissolved. The government stays in office during the election, because you can’t have a country without a government for two and and a half months.

The government continues to have the same powers as before the election writ was dropped, and the TPP negotiations are a good example of them - international relations have to continue even during an election.

Three points however:

• the TPP talks have failed for, for now, and the meeting has been adjourned;

• one of the reasons for the failure of the talks appears to be that the Canadian government refused to open up Canada’s dairy markets to foreign competition. Whether that is a good thing or not, is left to the reader to determine, but it certainly doesn’t sound like the Canadian government is a walk-over in these talks;

• if a trade deal is reached, it still needs legislation passed by Parliament to implement.
Trans-Pacific talks fail, weakening Conservative hopes as election looms;

The way the Riders are [allegedly] playing this year, a long election campaign may come as a blessed relief!

Weekend, CBC radio interview, Jean Pierre Kingsley, former head of Elections Canada;

“PM Harper is gaming the system”, “what it does is completely distort everything we’ve ever fought for.”

Re: end of subsidy for non corporate contributions:

"Also opposed to the subsidy’s elimination is Duff Conacher, founding director of Democracy Watch. In an open letter to the media, Mr. Conacher says the annual subsidy is “the most democratic part of the federal political finance system because the funding is handed out based on the actual support from voters each party receives in an election.”

He adds: “By cutting the per-vote funding, the Conservatives are making the most undemocratic change they could make to the federal political finance system.”

In his opinion.

However, the mechanisms of election funding, like other things in a democracy, should be a matter for respectful public debate. Some may favor a system where the public purse subsidises political parties. Other may favour a system where the parties are expected to raise all of their own funds by small donations from individual, ordinary Canadians. There are pros and cons for each system, and arguments based on democracy can be advanced in favour of both.

Ultimately, each voter will have to make up their own mind as to which is the better system.

However, demonising your opponent for having the temerity to favour a different view than yourself is not, in my opinion, conducive to a healthy democracy, where there should be robust discussion of the merits of particular policies on their merits.

I know, right? What does he know? He’s only the former head of Elections Canada, why should we believe him, right? And Democracy Watch? Prolly just making stuff up, right?

Except there was no ‘respectful public debate’, on this. It was foisted upon Canadians to give Conservatives a huge advantage, no other reason. They get all their money from Corporations, NOT average Canadians. Like the hidden $36mil cut to health care funding, hidden in another bill, no respectful public debate, again! AND called the election so it would be the longest in our history because they have the corporate cash to outlast their opponents pocketbooks. Gaming the system, straight up.

It’s not ‘demonizing’ when you’re just pointing out the facts. But claiming it is, is totally an American political tactic. You’re just proving my point now!

I don’t recall there being “respectful public debate” on official bilingualism back in the 1960s. (Introduced by a Liberal government.)

There wasn’t also “respectful public debate” on Free Trade in 1988. (Introduced by a Conservative government.)

I could go on. The GST, Avro Arrow cancellation, Bomarc nuclear missiles, single-payer healthcare, the metric system, RRSPs, tax-free savings accounts–all were approved by Parliament without “respectful public debate.”

You claim that the Conservatives, who are currently in power, do such things to give themselves an advantage. But I would suggest that all Canadian governments, of any party, will move ahead with what they want to do, irrespective of “respectful public debate,” in order to give themselves an advantage. Liberals included–didn’t Pierre Trudeau implement the NEP to appease Quebec and Ontario at the expense of the West? Where was the “respectful public debate” then?

Anyway, when Stephen Harper sets up re-education camps for socialists, calls himself “Dictator for Life,” and outlaws free speech according to section 2(b) of the Charter, let me know. Until then, I’m not going to panic. As I have said before, the idea of Canada (free, strong, tolerant, etc.) is stronger than its government. This country will survive mismanagement by Harper, Trudeau, or Mulcair, after October. Canadians will not allow otherwise.

You do know that Mulcair has supported the TPP? All parties do.

Did anyone else watch the debate? I only caught the end of it but I think Mulcair was the strongest speaker. Harper was very slick but he’s been at this for a long time. Trudeau sounded angry at times and was too much on the defensive. May did alright and I think she elevated the discourse at the end with her closing statement. I wish I had seen the whole thing start to finish.

Just finished watching the debate. At the end, when Harper is getting raked over the coals for the diminishing international reputation we have, he claims that we are number 1 in the Reputation Institute rankings. Have you ever heard of this organization? I hadn’t, so I looked it up. It’s a small consulting firm in the Netherlands which works to improve corporate reputations. What the HELL does this have to do with Canada’s international reputation? Can you say clutching at straws?

It’s on youtube. I’ll post a link when I’m off mobile.

Have to hold off watching until Sunday though; too busy until then.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSf2__qpeGA

I watched part of it then fell asleep. (I’m fighting a bug or something, I’ve been ridiculously tired for the past 4 days and falling asleep at 630 pm is not because the debate was boring) IMO Harper distorted some facts and was coy about others. I agree with CBC “At Issue” panelist Chantal Hebert that listening to Mulcair and Trudeau discuss the Clarity Act in an English Language debate was surreal. But over all, there wasn’t anything game changing about the debates.

Interestingly they all got the “Black Suit” memo. It looked like they went to a funeral and a debate broke out.

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/08/07/6e7d3a78ba1822786abe580dca4d9e85.jpg

Any Vancouver-area Dopers going to see Mulcair today?

[QUOTE=Bookkeeper]
Just finished watching the debate. At the end, when Harper is getting raked over the coals for the diminishing international reputation we have, he claims that we are number 1 in the Reputation Institute rankings. Have you ever heard of this organization? I hadn’t, so I looked it up. It’s a small consulting firm in the Netherlands which works to improve corporate reputations. What the HELL does this have to do with Canada’s international reputation?
[/QUOTE]

What start with this question?

  1. What is the objective evidence Canada’s “international reputation” has been harmed? Amongst whom? To what degree? Why?

  2. To what extent does Canada even HAVE an international reputation? What material difference does this alleged loss of reputation have? How does it impact Canada or Canadians?

I’ve been hearing for 25 damn years about how the latest government is hurting our international reputation. Brian Mulroney was too close to Ronald Reagan, remember? Jean Chretien abandoned our allies and our international responsibilities. Now Stephen Harper is something something carbon blah blah Israel. To hear the opponents of the government of the day we should be a pariah along with North Korea by now.

[QUOTE=Spoons]
There wasn’t also “respectful public debate” on Free Trade in 1988. (Introduced by a Conservative government.)

[/QUOTE]

Well, we did have an election in which it was the central issue. That isn’t true of most government initiatives.

Harper wants to ban travel for Canadians to countries where terrorist organizations are operating. I wonder if he’s planning to include Israel in that list of countries…

Er, wouldn’t that be October 11? October 19 is (a) a Monday, and (b) the week after (Canadian) Thanksgiving Day.

Sorry my sentence was ambiguous. The ELECTION is Monday, October 19th. The writer was issues…and I started the OP on August 2nd, which the Sunday of a long weekend for most provinces.

Canadian Thanksgiving is October 11 this year. We will all sleep well the week before the election.

End the delay and vote now. (MattMcL and I were the first to vote in our respective ridings.)

What the heck is up with Harper taking potshots at premiers? Does he really think that is a winning strategy? Today he was chastising Brad Wall of all people.