Author: admin

Elections Canada Statement on University of Guelph poll – and the Conservative reaction

Statement from Elections Canada:

OTTAWA, April 15, 2011 – The Special Voting Rules of the Canada Elections Act provide for the use of the special ballot to assist electors in a range of situations. Certain electors, including members of the Canadian Forces serving abroad and electors away from their ridings during a federal election (eg. snowbirds), can vote only by special ballot. The special ballot is also available to all electors who wish to vote by mail or at the local Elections Canada office. Because the rules governing the use of the special ballot are different from those for standard voting methods, Elections Canada generally uses the special ballot outside the local Elections Canada office in defmed circumstances to assist electors who face barriers to voting, such as electors in acute care hospitals or in isolated work camps in locations like Fort McMurray in northern Alberta.

“Initiatives of this nature are expected to be planned well ahead of the election,” said Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Marc Mayrand. “Parties are consulted, to avoid any confusion and to give them an opportunity to raise any possible concerns so that these may be considered and, where appropriate, addressed prior to conducting such initiatives.”

In light of the focus on youth and student electoral participation at the 41 st general election, and on efforts to increase voter interest and turnout among this group, a well-intentioned returning officer undertook a special initiative to create an opportunity for students at the University of Guelph to vote by special ballot. Once Elections Canada officials were made aware of the local initiative in Guelph, the returning officer was instructed not to engage in any further activities of a similar nature. All returning officers have received this instruction.

While the initiative at the University of Guelph was not pre-authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Canada Elections Act provides that electors may apply for and vote by special ballot. A special ballot coordinator, appointed by the local returning officer, oversaw the activities at the University of Guelph. All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid.

–

UPDATE: Shortly after Elections Canada issued this statement, the Conservative Party issued the following:

Statement by the Conservative Campaign

We welcome the statement by Elections Canada concerning voting on campuses and in the electoral district of Guelph.

As we observed this morning, voting is a democratic right and a fair election process is an equally important democratic right.

While the Elections Canada statement confirms that what happened in Guelph lacked proper authorization, we applaud the decision not to disenfranchise University of Guelph students because of errors by the local Returning Officer. These student voters should not suffer because of mistakes by the local election officials.

At the same time, we are pleased that the rules for special ballotting have been clarified and reconfirmed. The same rules should apply everywhere and be applied consistently across the country.

We urge all Canadians to vote, whether by special ballot, at advance polls, or on May 2.

 

Get the back story to this issue here.

The Conservative argument for the blocked ballots in Guelph

The Guelph Mercury reports that the Conservative Party of Canada is seeking to have the “special ballots” of as many as 700 students nullified.

Here is the text of a letter that Arthur Hamilton, the Conservative Party's lawyer, sent to Elections Canada yesterday outlining the party's objections. (Do read the Mercury story first and then parts of this letter will make more sense)

Mr. Pierre Boutet
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

Dear Mr. Boutet:
Re: Polling irregularities in Guelph

Thank you for speaking with me on numerous occasions yesterday afternoon in respect of voting irregularities in the electoral district of Guelph. Given the circumstances which transpired at the University of Guelph yesterday, I wish to confirm in writing the content of our discussions.

The purpose of my first call to you yesterday was to address what appeared to be a simple matter of the exclusion of a scrutineer at a time when ballots were being provided to individuals purporting to be on the list of electors within the Guelph electoral district. After our various discussions, you expressly confirmed to me that no advance poll or other form of polling had been sanctioned by Elections Canada for any location at the University of Guelph that day, and that accordingly, any ballots which had been received and placed in the ballot box then located at the University of Guelph were a nullity, which would not be recognized, counted or used for any purpose relating to the 41 st general election now underway. Given that express representation by you, acting in your role as authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (the “CEO”), many related concerns with respect to the manner by which this polling was being conducted became moot.

You will know that in a subsequent telephone discussion between us yesterday afternoon, further concerns were raised regarding potential polling or supposed “registration of voters” which was being conducted on the campus of York University in North Toronto. In that subsequent telephone discussion, you once again confirmed that no polling at any university campus had been sanctioned by the CEO, and that as such, no person purporting to be on a voter's list should have been provided a ballot under any circumstances on April 13 at any polling station which was not located within the office of a Returning Officer.

Following our discussions, I am advised that the Returning Officer for the electoral district of Guelph, or an individual identifying herself as the Returning Officer personally attended at the University of Guelph to order that the collection of completed ballots from supposed voters continue, and further, that the hours the poll would remain open were extended for a second time that day, such that this supposed poll remained open beyond 7:00 p.m. Indeed, the final ballot was cast and put into a supposed special ballot box at 8:00 p.m. last evening. The ballot box in question was identified as special ballot box #2 and bore the marking 351-700. It is further my understanding that two seals were affixed to this ballot box, the top seal bearing #1030701 and the bottom seal bearing #1030702.

As you know from our discussions, the opportunity of candidates in the electoral district of Guelph to scrutineer during this “voting” did not comply with the requirements of the Canada Elections Act. But for the representation which you made to me during our telephone discussions yesterday, that all of the ballots placed special ballot box #2 (or any other ballot box utilized) were a nullity, the Conservative Party of Canada and its candidate in the electoral district of Guelph would have a number of challenges and complaints with respect to the ballots now collected during this supposed polling event at the University of Guelph yesterday.

However, on the strength of the unequivocal, express representation you provided yesterday, in accordance with the authority provided to you by the CEO, we require immediate confirmation from the CEO and the Returning Officer from the electoral district of Guelph that this ballot box and all of its contents will remain sealed and that none of the ballots contained therein will under any circumstances be combined with, added to or otherwise dealt with when the final tabulation of votes cast for the various candidates in the electoral district of Guelph takes place. We require this confirmation from the Returning Office and the CEO in writing without delay.

On a related note, a scrutineer who attempted to be present with this ballot box as it was located at the University of Guelph yesterday noted that many of the controls required for a polling location were not in place. Specifically, at the time when ballots were being provided to voters and placed in special ballot box #2, partisan election materials from various candidates contesting the election in the electoral district of Guelph were present in the polling location and indeed immediately proximate to the location of the ballot box. We trust the CEO and the Returning Officer for the electoral district of Guelph will agree that such unrestricted polling conditions fall markedly below the standard required by the Canada Elections Act.

To ensure immediate attention to the matters raised in this letter, I have taken the liberty of providing a copy of this letter to Mr. Mayrand, one of his counsel, and the Returning Officer for the electoral district of Guelph.

Once again, thank you for your prompt attention and definitive determination on the impropriety of the events at the University of Guelph with respect to this supposed polling location yesterday afternoon.

Yours very truly,
Arthur Hamilton

 

Also related: In 2006, the Liberals shut down some special ballot collection at the University of Toronto.

Latest Tory ad: Is this what Harper was decrying on debate night?

During the English-language debates, Conservative leader Stephen Harper had this to say:

“I don't think this kind of political bickering, personal attacks back and forth, is frankly going to do anything for Canadians.”

Two days later, Harper's party released this new ad:

Question then: Is this a “personal attack” or is it, as Conservatives argue, simply reminding voters of things Ignatieff actually said?

Polls are in: Who won the French-language leaders debate?

“The three national party leaders jockeyed to be Quebec’s next federalist champion Wednesday night while the Bloc Quebecois’ Gilles Duceppe worked to knock them off their stride …” [Read the rest of the debate night report by my colleague Jessica Murphy]

Right after the debate, our pollster, Leger Marketing, was in the field to find out who won. The results:

French debate winners

Other pollsters jumped in as well. Ipsos Reid also finds Duceppe was tagged as the winner by most (42%) but finds Michael Ignatieff in second place (declared the winner by 22%), Jack Layton in third at 19% (Post French-Language Debate Flash Poll Reveals Duceppe Takes the Night, Harper Stumbles)

On Twitter, the NDP communications team is reporting the results of a CROP poll (looking for the link) which also has Duceppe out front at 41% but has Layton finishing a strong second (28% pick him as the winner) followed by Harper at 16% and then Ignatieff (12%).

 

Statement from Auditor General Sheila Fraser

Public Statement from Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, regarding news reports about the audit of the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund:

We will not release or comment on our audit report on the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund. Under the Auditor General Act, we can only present reports when Parliament is sitting. The Office of the Audit General of Canada remains the custodian of its reports until they are presented to the Speaker of the House of Commons for tabling.

I strongly caution the public to wait until our final report on the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund has been tabled in Parliament and made public.

We work very hard to keep our reports confidential before they are tabled. There are indications that an early draft of this report may have been released by someone outside our Office. Our normal audit process requires that we share early drafts of our reports with government departments. We do this so they can validate the facts on which our conclusions are based, provide any additional relevant information, and so they can prepare responses to our recommendations. Sometimes during the process of fact validation, additional information is brought to our attention. Only the final report that is tabled in Parliament represents our audit findings and conclusions.

 

Ignatieff on voting in another country

Millions of Canadians were not born in this country and hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) have likely cast a ballot in an election in another country. Nothing wrong with that. But the Ignatieff campaign had two different answers when asked if the Liberal leader — a born-in-Canada Canadian citizen — had voted in another country.

On Sunday, my colleague Brian Lilley asked the Ignatieff campaign if he had voted in an election in another country.

Ignatieff spokesman Michel Liboiron replied: “Mr. Ignatieff is and always has been a Canadian citizen, period. He has never held any other citizenship and as such, has never voted in a foreign election.”

Lilly asked because:

  • In a 1998 book, Ignatieff says he voted Labour in 1997 to oust the ruling Conservatives. “Why did I vote Labour? I wanted the rascals out,” Ignatieff said in Identity and Politics: A Discussion with Michael Ignatieff and Sean Neeson.
  • Lilley reported that, according to online records, Ignatieff was registered to vote in Britain as recently as 2002.
  • In 2004, Ignatieff told the Glasgow Herald: “I am an American Democrat. I will vote for Kerry in November.”

Apparently Liboiron misspoke because on Monday, Ignatieff himself said:

Q: You say you’ve never voted in a foreign election. But you said something different in 1998 and 2004. So which one is true?

Ignatieff: I’m a Canadian citizen. I’ve never been the citizen of another country. I’ve never voted – can’t vote in the United States. But I’m a Commonwealth citizen, so I have voted in a British election. But you know, I’m also someone who didn’t go to a foreign audience and call this country a second call failed socialist state in front of a Republican audience. You know, I’m a proud Canadian. I’m a proud Canadian. And I’ve lived overseas – ya. And wherever I’ve been, I’ve always supported progressive policies. So, you know, in 2004, I thought that John Kerry was a better idea than George W. Bush. And only a Conservative would think that George W. Bush was a better choice for the United States. But I can’t vote in the United States. Never did.

Q: How many Canadian elections did you vote in when you were living overseas.

Ignatieff: I voted in a couple. Can’t remember, happy to tell you. But I voted in Canadian elections since I was able to vote.

Joseph Stiglitz on American inequality

Economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that America's growing inequality looks a lot like the kind of inequality that is one of the root causes of the Arab Spring uprisings. Some excerpts:

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin . . .

… what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided toa do anything but lower taxes . . .

Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office . . .

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level . . .

The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about.

Arcade Fire gives Harper the thumbs down and other indie music bits about politics

Juno- and Grammy-award winners Arcade Fire have put up a post on their band blog warning their fans against voting for Stephen Harper. “Our current leader has championed some pretty destructive initiatives on everyone’s behalf…” they write.

[UPDATE: As of 1930, the post from the band has been removed. Trying to track down band members/management to see what’s up]

[UPPERDATE: Post is back up, this time signed by band member Richard Parry.

Meanwhile, indie acts around the country have been pitching in (I’m discovering) with their own mix of politics and music.

Let me point you to this catchy ditty by Regina, SK band Library Voices and their track “The Prime Minister’s Daughter”. The song’s subject is, in fact, Rachel Harper.

Then there’s Waterloo, Ont. indie outfit Will Currie and the Country French in which they cast their eyes on the current lot of leaders looking for our vote and, apparently disappointed, pine for the days of Tommy Douglas, Pierre Trudeau and Stephen Lewis.

Of course, one stalwart of Canada’s indie scene is already in Parliament. That would be NDP MP Charlie Angus. The musical projects of his that I most enjoyed included Grievous Angels and L’Etranger. Speaking of L’Etranger, Chuck’s partner-in-crime in that band, Andrew Cash, is now trying to join Angus in the NDP caucus but to do that, he’ll have to beat Liberal incumbent Mario Silva in the Toronto riding of Davenport.  Here’s Cash and Angus (many moons ago) performing “One People” while in L’Etranger.  (For a great example of the roots-rock flavour from Grievous Angels here: Can you spot Charlie?) [Update in 2014: Cash did beat Silva and he and Angus are now in the House of Commons)

I asked my tweeps for some other contributions in the same vein and will include them here.

Richard Underhill, who once led my all-time favourite all-sax band The Shuffle Demons (remember “Spadina Bus”?), leads a crowd in Kensington Market, Toronto singing “I Don’t Like Stephen Harper”. He put the results on YouTube. Dylan Bell has a disco-flavoured take on the same theme with “L’Etat C’Est Moi”.

First time, I have to admit, that I’ve run across The Dinghies. But Emma points me to “The Right Honourable Stephen Harper”, a loopy, little bit of synthesized syrup takes some musical cues from Laurie Anderson and Cocteau Twins (am I dating myself with those references?). And, like Laurie Anderson and Cocteau Twins, I don’t really understand this.

Meanwhile, this one is just plain funny. “I’ve Got a Crush on Harper”

And, of course, our prime minister can rock right back at you. Here’s the PM doing The Who’s “The Seeker” at his party’s Christmas Party in Ottawa in 2010:

If you’ve got some, please post in the links:

 

Judge Reilly's rap sheet

For the second day in a row, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff had to deal with a candidate problem. On Wednesday, he fired Andre Forbes, the Liberal candidate in the northern Quebec riding of Manicouagan, after the NDP revealed that Forbes had once referred to aboriginals as “Featherheads” and said they were lazy.

Today, the Conservative war room pushed around the transcript of a radio interview that Liberal candidate John Reilly did on March 31 with the Dave Rutherford Show. Reilly quit his job as an Alberta provincial court judge to run as the Liberal candidate in the riding of Wild Rose (Conservative Blake Richards is the incumbent). On the Rutherford show, the discussion turned to law-and-order issues:

Reilly: : I mean, this is one of my problems with the criminal justice system the way it is, is that I say we put too much emphasis on the offence and not enough emphasis on the offender.  If you’re looking at what the Conservative government wants to do is say if this is the offence, you go to jail. And that's going to put people in jail that don't need to be there.

Host:  But what kind of offences though?

John Reilly:  Sexual assault.

Host:  You shouldn’t go to jail for a sex assault?

John Reilly:  Well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults.

Ignatieff said he would not fire Reilly as his Wildrose candidate and noted that Reilly issued a statement in which he “unreservedly apologize[d]” for “the clumsy example” he used to talk about problems with the justice system. Ignatieff told reporters: “He has served the community with a long record of distinguished public service. He made one remark that he's going to regret for the rest of his life. He's offered an unreserved apology. I've accepted it.”

Reilly has had his sentences overturned at least three times by the Alberta Court of Appeal and was criticized by the high court in at least two.

  • Earlier this year in February, the Alberta Court of Appeal criticized Reilly when it unanimously overturned his decision to give a conditional sentence to a drug offender. Joseph Dow was caught with what police said was “a potpourri of drugs” and later pleaded guilty to three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possession of the proceeds of crime. But Reilly did not send him to jail, letting him serve his sentence in the community rather than prison. “I've made comments before about how ineffective I feel imprisonment is,” Reilly said from the bench in passing sentencing. But the Alberta Court of Appeal gave Dow a 30-month prison term and, in the unanimous ruling accompanying that decision, Justice Patricia Rowbotham wrote: “It was not open to the sentencing judge to disregard guidance of this court, to disregard sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code and to set his own idiosyncratic policy. The sentence is demonstrably unfit.”
  • Last fall, the Alberta Court of Appeal quadrupled a 90-day sentence Reilly had given to a man who sexually molested a 14-year-old developmentally delayed woman while the two were travelling on a bus. The appeal court put the man in jail for 12 months and the appeal judges wrote: “We find it particularly troubling that the trial judge stated effectively that a 90-day sentence served intermittently had the same deterrent effect as a 12-to 15-month jail sentence. This is clearly wrong. This court has pointed out and reiterates that in child sexual abuse cases, denunciation and deterrence are not secondary considerations in favour of rehabilitation or individualized solutions.”
  • In March, 2010, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned a conditional sentence that Reilly gave a former guidance counsellor who had plead guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one count of gross decency in a case in which three junior high school girls were molested. Reilly gave the offender a two-year sentence to be served in the community. The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned that and sent the man to jail for three years.

But in one case, the Alberta Court of Appeals said Reilly's sentence was too harsh. In June, 2009, Reilly sentenced a  “spiritual healer” who molested a client's two teenage daughters to five-and-a-half years in prison. The appeals court thought that was too harsh and gave the man four-and-a-half years in jail.

 

Liberal candidate called aboriginals "Featherheads", says they're lazy. He's now an ex-candidate

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff this morning said he ordered an immediate investigation after he learned of comments attributed to Andre Forbes, the Liberal candidate in the northern Quebec riding of Manicouagan. Ignatieff said that, if he learns that what Forbes said is true, he will not be a Liberal candidate.

UPDATEDSee below: Ignatieff has, in fact, fired Forbes.

Here's what the NDP war room put out today after digging up some old quotes attributed to Forbes:

IN HIS OWN WORDS: Liberal Candidate André Forbes

André Forbes is the Liberal candidate in Manicouagan. He is also the founder and former spokesperson for l’Association des Droits des Blancs (the Association for the Rights of Whites) in Sept-Iles, Quebec and is spokesperson for Métis Côte-Nord. Does Michael Ignatieff think André Forbes is an acceptable candidate? Some of the comments:

On the work ethic of Innu :

“We all know that the aboriginals will not keep their job… I have worked for many years for Gulf Paper of Clarke City, which closed in 1968. Many Montagnais worked there. I only remember one who did a good job. There must have been other hard-working amongst them but I don’t recall one name”, said the person who is circulating a petition to corner stores of the area denouncing “secret negotiations between the governments and the Innu.” (Le Soleil, March 2, 2002)

On his opposition to land negotiations :

Yesterday, Mr. Forbes said that governments recognized Aboriginal rights over those of white people. “This is heinous politics which brings social tensions, which leads to what is happening in Israel.” (Le Soleil, May 2, 2002)

On the “high cost” of respecting First Nations :

“Do you know how much a featherhead costs?” That’s the brutal question I was asked by André Forbes, president of the Association for the Rights of Whites of Sept-Îles, in September of 2002, at the height of the controversy surrounding the agreement in principle with the Innu community. Forbes was referring to how much it costs for the State to fulfill its responsibilities towards aboriginals. Of course, he had the answer. “For you, it’s 25 grand; for a prisoner, 50 grand; for an Indian; 100 grand.”(L’actualite, October 15, 2004)

On the threat posed to “white rights”:

“In Sept-Iles, André Forbes warns the newly-recognized Innu rights will one day trump his own. He represents an association he says is for the protection of white rights.”The Innu are telling us now we're the cowboys and you're the Indians,” (The National, November 8, 2010)

Forbes is now an active member of Métis Côte-Nord, an organization that recently denounced “special treatment” for Muslims, gays and lesbians. In a letter concerning hydro development in Northern Québéc, for which Forbes is the contact, the Métis Côte-Nord wrote:

”If our Métis Community was made of Muslims, homosexuals or of an association of old ladies making moccasins out of caribou skin, would Hydro-Québéc consult with us? Yes.” (Letter, January 5, 2009)

Last week, Liberals denounced a Bloc Québécois candidate for lack of respect to Aboriginal citizens. Does Michael Ignatieff think André Forbes is an acceptable candidate?

Just before 3 p.m. this afternoon, the Liberals issued the following release:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff made the following statement today:
“As soon as I was apprised of past comments made by the Liberal candidate in Manicouagan, André Forbes, I immediately asked my staff to inquire about their validity. As a result, Mr. Forbes has been informed that he is no longer a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr. Forbes’ comments have no place within the Liberal Party of Canada.
“The Liberal Party of Canada has always stood for equality among all citizens, including First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and non-Aboriginal Canadians. We categorically condemn any comments that seek to divide Canadians on the basis of their culture or ethnicity.