Second Gen (2003-2016, 2016- )
Odd numbers so far. The Grits are leading in the popular early vote and did well in Atlantic Canada. NDP vote solid.
Update: Who thought the Liberals would get over 100 seat and over 30% of the vote?
Further Thoughts: What will it be?
Tories + NDP + a slightly wacko shock radio host… or
Liberals + Bloc + NDP anyone but Harper coalition
That second scenerio has about as much mileage as the Bloc’s future vision. What a weird result. It is truly the time for the Beacon of the Flea to guide us.
I think there was a mistake made by someone when the election date was picked. We were given too much time to think and too much time to talk. And what did we talk about over Christmas and New Years? The season of giving to the good and to the needy passed in semi-silence politically speaking but the polls show it was then that the fates of the candidates changed. We all have our thoughts but I think it was less about the news and more about the lull. Perhaps to create revisionist comforting unhistory in the mind. Perhaps to be angry…or likely just angrier than usual. Perhaps to be open to change.
Today we vote. Only today. I like to vote and I would vote more often if given half a chance. My vote will not elect a Member of Parliament. It never has. It will express my view, however, and that is more important. I feel badly for those who vote to pick a winner but not whose view aligns with those who will take their seats.
Update: Interesting to note that SES polling results for Sunday, the final day of SES polling in their last 3 day rolling poll [Warning PDF!] announced last night at 7:45 pm before the deadline (therefore not infringing s.328 to repeat by me here), shows a weird shift away from the Tories:
All voters
Tories – 33.2%
Liberals – 30.4%
NDP – 22.2%
Bloc – 9.4%
Green – 4.8%Likely voters
Tories – 32.7%
Liberals – 31.0%
NDP – 23.3%
Bloc – 9.0%
Green – 4.0%
If there turns out to be a weekend collapse of Tory support, has SES seen it? If there is not, who was SES calling? All very slim information to be sure but as a NDP voter one has to grasp at straws.
Upperdate: I just noticed the best report from a all-candidates meeting over at Chris Taylor’s blog. Check out the scoring methodology.
Interesting to note discussion of the wording of section 329 of the Canada Elections Act:
Prohibition — premature transmission of results
329. No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district.
Pretty clear that blogging is transmission but is reporting popular vote at a national level? That is not the vote in an electoral district but it is a aggregation of votes and votes are only cast in electoral districts. This handy dandy timeline explains the back story and here is the May 2005 ruling from the BC Court of Appeal on the constitutionality of the transmission ban in s. 329. Here is the nub:
[59] In my opinion, when the s. 329 publication ban is seen as having the same purpose or objective as the staggered voting hours, that is, to eliminate the information imbalance that can result from disclosure of results before all of the polls have closed, the respondent’s argument concerning the lack of evidence to support the ban falls away.
[60] One of the contextual factors referred to in Harper was the apprehension of harm in relation to the electoral process. While the Lortie Commission Report stated that the availability of election results in Newfoundland and the Maritimes before the close of the polls in western Canada was not of “great concern”, assuming staggered voting hours were in place, it was clearly open to Parliament to decide what measures to adopt in meeting public concerns about the information imbalance. Parliament chose to implement the solution of staggered voting hours but also chose to maintain the publication ban on election results. Public perception of electoral fairness is obviously critical in a democracy. Given the extent of the public concern the Commission had identified about voter information imbalance, Parliament’s choice to leave the ban in place appears to me to be unremarkable.
[61] In determining that the Attorney General had failed to demonstrate by the evidence adduced that the objective of the s. 329 ban was pressing and substantial, it appears to me that the appeal judge overlooked the findings of the Lortie Commission about the very large percentage of Canadians who had expressed concern about information imbalance coupled with perceptions of electoral unfairness. In my opinion, this was not a case in which scientific proof of harm was required to justify the limitation on freedom of expression. What was required, and what the trial judge had before him, was evidence from which it could be inferred that there was a reasoned apprehension of harm to the legitimacy of the electoral regime if the publication ban, aimed at preventing information imbalance, was not continued.
[62] I note as well that McLachlin C.J.C., for herself and Major J, dissenting on the third party spending issue in Harper, agreed that the promotion of electoral fairness was a pressing and substantial objective. Her observations respecting the characterization of electoral fairness as a pressing and substantial concern are instructive in the present context (at para. 26):
Common sense dictates that promoting electoral fairness is a pressing and substantial objective in our liberal democracy, even in the absence of evidence that past elections have been unfair; see Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876, at para. 38. A theoretical objective asserted as pressing and substantial is sufficient for purposes of the s. 1 justification analysis; see Thomson Newspapers, supra, at para. 38; Harvey, supra, at para. 38; R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, at p. 191; McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229, at p. 281; Edmonton Journal [Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326], at pp. 1343-45.
[63] Two of the other important contextual factors that need to be considered in this case are the nature of the expression the s. 329 ban limits and the period of time during which the ban operates. I agree with the appeal judge’s description of the type of expression being limited by the ban as falling “at the margins of political speech”. The ban in issue here is directed at information about election results and is intended to operate for only a brief period. The nature of the expression to which the ban applies and the brief time period in which the ban operates does not limit participation in political debate.
[64] It is convenient to note here that the respondent submitted that the ban in s. 329 is now obsolete because the advent of such things as satellite and cable television and the Internet makes enforcement difficult, if not impossible. He referred to some passages in the Lortie Commission Report to support his argument. In my view, difficulty in enforcement of the publication ban is irrelevant to the constitutional question. Many criminal and quasi-criminal offences are difficult to enforce but that does not mean that Parliament ought not to make them offences. The fact that the ban may be violated does not logically lead to the conclusion that the information imbalance between voters the ban seeks to remedy is not pressing and substantial. I would not accede to the argument that the relative ease by which the ban may be violated demands its constitutional demise.
Mind your step tomorrow.
There is nothing more embarassing about human existence that the principle “if you say enough, it it will be true”. No greater example of this exists than the phrase “activist judges” which has been successfully shoved into the parlance by axe-grinders. Sadly, though not unexpectedly, the current poll leader in the Federal election has trotted out this sham:
Stephen Harper says some judges appointed by the federal Liberals are activists working to promote their own social agendas, statements that drew heavily from his tenure in the old Reform and Canadian Alliance parties. The assertions by the Conservative Leader, whose party leads the public opinion polls, mark one of the few times during a tightly scripted election campaign that he has strayed far from the centre of the political highway.
A thinking person’s first response to this ought to be somewhat similar to hearing that our Foreign-Minister-in-Waiting, Stocky, will have difficulty dealing with visits to Kenya giving their obviously heretical and slanderous position on the meaning of the Rift Valley’s contents.
How is it that claims of a secret agenda of the right is a farce but the secret agenda of judges is lapped up by the willing and the weak? How is it that one part of the constitutional structure can so misrepresent another part of it and not be labelled as disloyal to the core by traditionalists (not to mention the sentient) as finger-pointery folk offer up freely for anyone who suggests, say, that Arctic paratrooper capability as a defence against sub-ice-cap submarines might not be the best use of military resources? It is clear from all objective considerations that, by body count at least but more so the right to hit the brakes, the responsible authors of constitutional change brought on by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were the mainly conservative premiers who signed up for it and did so rightly as it expresses the complex nature of Canadian democracy and details it more and more as it is unfolds through each ruling. The courts, in doing so, play the role demanded of it with honour and intelligence (but without political pressure though as humans) through the combination of the facts of its historical constitutional existence and the task asked of it by the legislators.
“Activist judge” is just another way of saying “person who disagrees with me”. Shammery and wilful blindness from the same folk who would restructure the Senate to actually give it power and distribute that power unequally to the low population zones of the nation. Another step by a political minority seeking to remake the nation and impose it on the rest of us. You have to at least admire their gall.
A couple of conservative bloggers got me thinking. This in tiself has me a bit worried but we are all working towards that grand CPC/NDP coalition…right? Right?
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared…
This section means that the laws of the Federal Goverment need to comply with The Bill of Rights. In this sense, like a piece of human rights legislation or an Interpretation Act, The Bill or Rights is quasi-constitutional. Not quite as over-riding as the Constitution but one that demands compliance within its sphere of influence. We learn that in section 5(2) which defines “law of Canada” as follows:
The expression “law of Canada” in Part I means an Act of the Parliament of Canada enacted before or after the coming into force of this Act, any order, rule or regulation thereunder, and any law in force in Canada or in any part of Canada at the commencement of this Act that is subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada.
A somewhat broad definition limited only as follows in 5(3):
The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.
…The Bill of Rights guarantees notice and some opportunity to contest a governmental deprivation of property rights only in the context of an adjudication of that person’s rights and obligations before a court or tribunal.
So not everything but something. The court stated that where no adjudicative procedure is necessary for the non-discretionary application of a law, the provision provides no benefit and the court illustrates this with the example that a taxpayer could not claim procedural protections against a change in income tax rates that adversely affected him.
What I think this all means is that where a Federal law sets out a process for deprivation of properly it must be due process and provide certain procedural rights such as fairness. Where, however, the act in question is not delegated but imposed directy by the Parliament itself there is no benefit of The Bill of Rights because of that pesky word “enacted” highlighted in bold above. The protections of the Charter get into the “enactment” of a statute and that is the difference. Hence the practical uselessness of The Bill of Rights as a tool against the legislated fiat such as in Anderson.
So when the Liberals say that placing property rights in the Constitution “would dismantle Canada’s social safety net” it might be fair to say that it would do so if there was some anticipatible consequence in a Court ruling supporting a previously unentrenched property right lurking there in The Bill of Rights. All The Bill of Rights can do is ensure the Federal Government must uphold property rights in its delegated processes. In other cases, the Federal Government and the provinces would need to agree to put property rights in the Charter at risk of unacceptable outcomes. But in that case, there is alway section 33 of the Charter and the notwithstanding clause. Right?
No one really wishes ill on anyone specifically – do they? But you can bet there have been a few prayers of a general nature rising from the Liberal war-room with this bit of divine intervention news this morning:
The federal Tories are standing behind a B.C. candidate who has been charged with attempting to smuggle a car and booze across the U.S. border last year. Derek Zeisman is running to replace retiring Conservative MP Jim Gouk in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior. The party only found out about the six charges on Wednesday after being contacted by the media. Canada Customs and Revenue alleges Zeisman tried to smuggle a 1989 Mercedes Benz from the U.S. into Canada, as well as 112 bottles of liquor in July 2004. He’s also accused of lying to customs officers about the incident. If convicted, Zeisman could be fined by up to $50,000 and could face six months in jail.
Is this the same guy?
Derek Zeisman, BAHons/94, BJ/95, is a sessional instructor at Capilano College in British Columbia. Derek is also a trade commissioner with the International Trade Centre in Vancouver, where he also resides. He can be reached at zeisman.derek@ic.gc.ca.
Yup. From the Tory’s candidate’s page:
Upon his return to Canada in 2002, Derek accepted a job as a trade commissioner at Industry Canada’s International Trade Centre in Vancouver, a position which allowed him to work closely with BC-based businesses by assisting them in exporting their goods and services around the world.
So while I am not exactly thinking that Stephen Harper counselled Mr. International Trade Wizard 2006 to bring the car over without declaring, he is up there in the all-party gallery of fools with our pal also known as the country’s dumbest blogger.
And just for full disclosure, all posts at A Good Beer Blog are based on full declaration to Canada’s fine customs officers.
Update: Harper did exactly the right thing. John Reynolds, however, clearly did not as Brooksy notes:
John Reynolds, the Tory campaign chairman, says the party intends to stand by Zeisman and the charges against him were only “administrative” in nature. “He will go to court, and he is still an innocent man until he goes through this process,” Reynolds told the Vancouver Province. “But even at that point, it’s not a criminal offence.”
I would have told Brooks directly but for his devotion to blogger software and its demands that I sell my soul to leave him a comment.
Best debate in a long time and largely due to the intelligent control imposed by Steve Paikin. If Paikin were to debate any of the four he would wins hands down. I think all four had a good showing in the context of the debate. They had their moments and made their points. That means nothing really changes in the election.
It has happened. The Liberal Party of Canada’s plan to roll out Ray Steven’s hit “Everything is Beautiful in its Own Way” is now officially on hold because the headline in the Toronto Star this morning reads “Tories Jump Into Clear Lead”:
The survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Star and La Presse, found that 36.2 per cent of decided voters say they will support the Conservatives, while 30.4 per cent favoured the Liberals. The NDP is supported by 17.9 per cent of voters, while the Bloc is at 10.4 per cent nationally and the Green party is at 4.7 per cent.
The SES poll dated 3 January shows a three point lead for the Tories, too. Expect it to bump again as everyone who votes for a winner now mooes over to the other side and practices their “I saw it all along” talking points.
You know…isn’t it sort of time? Even if it were the Visagoths, which it almost isn’t, don’t even the mad marauding hordes get a chance at governing once in a while? A Tory minority would accomplish a few things. They would finally have to put up or shut up, something we have all sort of wanted since we first heard Preston Manning speak. And also they would have to face a leftist majority in the house. Would the other four parties (if the Greens win one) have the guts to create a grand coalition?
Best of all it would be a call for the creation of the Party of the Flea whose storehouse of slogans such as Fleatastic and Now is the time at the Flea when we dance would go so well with anime characters and car show lassies on election posters. Nation-wide Flea power. Fabulous thought.
I wrote this over at Ben’s this morning about the relative hugeness of the refusal of Federal finance minister Ralph Goodale to step aside while the RCMP conducts a criminal investigation into a possible leak of information from his department:
It really should be the only thing so far that is huge since the writ dropped. “Beer and popcorn” and a blogging fool were personal stupidities. This is a criminal investigation of a cabinet minister. Is there a problem with the non-stop accusations of the blogosphere that we can no longer tell the difference? Hey – I am going to make a post about that…gimme it back…gimme…it…back (pop!). There.
The dangers of blogging this time is to those invoved in the all scandal all the time crowd that cannot tell a big problem from a little one. So far the GOTCHA moments have been, first, an unkind (but technically correct) comment by a high placed government-side staffer about another party’s proposals on child care and, second, a resignation over a really, really stupid series of blog postings by a slightly less well placed government-side staffer who actually jumped on his sword fairly quickly. These two gotchas add up to zippo.
But Ralph’s situtation is different. For the background of the story, read Stephen Taylor’s post of 15 December. What is being alleged is some sort of leak to the marketplace allowing certain investors to make a bundle before an official announcement. Didn’t Martha do jail time for just saying something like that didn’t happen, regardless of the findings of whether she participated in it?
Lesson for blogosphere: this is what big looks like.
I parked this over in the sideblog during this time of the great head cold, but the question still has to be asked: was this guy the country’s dumbest blogger? Paul Wells tells us who the guy is (now was.) Forget for a moment the shameful sense of humour and the shoddy use of such humour for one’s political opponents. I cannot believe that the guy did not understand the essentially public nature of the Internet. Well, at least he has fallen on his keyboard as any good soldier who brings shame to the cause should:
A high-ranking official within the Liberal Party of Canada resigned today after he made disparaging comments on his blog about NDP Leader Jack Layton and his wife, NDP candidate Olivia Chow. Mike Klander, executive vice-president of the federal Liberal party’s Ontario wing, stepped down after photographs of Chow, the NDP candidate for the Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina, and a chow chow dog were posted on his blog dated Dec. 9 under the heading “Separated at Birth”…
Stephen Taylor, who is coming out as the star blogger of the CPC in this election, noted this important past of what was posted on the blog in question:
Before Mike Klander took down his blog he posted on December 22nd, apologizing for his offensive comments:
It would appear that more people viewed my blog than the small circle of friends it was intented (sic) for. I apologize if anyone was offended by my comments…they were meant to be in jest. Anyway, I have removed my previous posts…
How can you write a public blog when you are a political figure and not think it will be seen by a lot of members of the public – including those who do not like you? This to me is a stunning revelation. The Liberal Party of Canada should be thanking God that they did not choose to rolled out anything about the information superhighway as a core plank in their platform this time around like they have in the past.
Bad taste plus bad political savvy meeting a seriously poor understanding of the way new technology works.
