Justin Trudeau (Photo: John McCallum/Flickr/Som Jandu) and Tom Mulcair (Photo: BCNDP/Flickr)
By Doug Carrick
The Conservatives may be a disaster at governing a nation, but they are experts at manipulating electoral wins. In the last two elections they improved their position by 6% in the weeks just before the elections – providing victories in both cases. It may happen again.
Off to see the Wizard
The Conservatives are noted for their propaganda and negative advertising. The corporate media will explain the wisdom of “staying the course”. And now the Conservatives have recruited the highly successful spin-doctor from Australia, Lynton Crosby, also known as the Wizard of Oz or the Lizard of Oz. In Australia, he is sometimes called the “attack dingo” and in Britain, a “political rottweiler”. His favourite phrase is “below the radar”, meaning sneaky.
So we better brace ourselves for a struggle. He was behind four successive conservative wins in Australia and also behind the majority win of David Cameron in the recent British election. Lynton Crosby is a winner…and we might be the losers!
Three-way race tightening
The polls, at the time of writing, show Canadians to be in a vulnerable position: the NDP are at 32%, Conservatives 30%, Liberals 30%, Greens 5% and Bloc Quebecois 3%. If the Conservatives make their usual 6% increase (with Lynton Crosby’s help), they will end up with 36% – knocking the NDP down to 29% and the Liberals down to 28%. In other words – another Conservative victory.
Power in working together
This situation is a threat, but only if we lose sight of the real battle. The critical struggle is between the vast majority of progressive Canadians (70%) and the corporate controlled Conservatives (30%). It is the struggle of the combined forces of Liberals, NDP and Greens to regain a caring society. But we must work together for the common cause, through strategic voting.
There is terrific power through strategic voting. The Conservatives may gain 6% through a propaganda campaign, but that is nothing compared with what Canadians can do through strategic voting. In the last election the Conservatives had won 21 seats in BC, but are currently polling to win only 7 seats. In four of these ridings, the Conservatives are leading by only 2%, 4%, 6% and 7% – and could easily be defeated by a relative handful of voters swinging their votes to the party most likely to defeat the Conservatives. There is real power by working together. Divided we fall.
Change is within reach
Strategic voting can defeat almost any Conservative candidate in Canada. In this election, we must abandon our old habits of voting for the party we think is best. Instead, we should vote for what is best for Canada – removing the Conservatives. Does it really matter whether the Liberals win a few more seats than the NDP or vice versa? They are both essentially progressive parties, and so are the Greens. They all promise to bring in electoral reform. They all are concerned about climate change; they all are concerned about the unfair distribution of wealth; and they all believe that peace-keeping is more important than war-making. They all want the restoration of democracy. These are exceedingly important issues – but not shared by the Harper Conservatives.
Great things can happen with the removal of the Conservatives. And what a boost to our self esteem! To think that we were the ones who faced up to the problem and made the critical change – no longer wimps putting up with unacceptable values. All of this will happen…as long as we do not split the progressive vote.
And for those who feel that voting is frustrating and insignificant, you can be assured that every vote done strategically will actually count. Every vote goes directly to defeat the Conservatives. Just vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Conservatives – and that will make the difference.
Doug Carrick writes regular articles for the Hornby Island “First Edition”, the Denman Island “Flagstone” and occasionally for the “Island Tides” and other publications.
At least one Baby Boomer hopes to see Harper exit the political stage on Oct. 19 (Flickr/Stephen Harper)
This is for my fellow baby boomers. Yes, I mean you +55ers – the ones who lived through the 60’s and 70’s and even remember some of it. Think back to those days. Do you remember “Make Love Not War”, “Ban The Bomb” or how about “Power to the People” or “Never Trust Anyone Over Thirty”? Do you remember what your priorities were back then – your values, your ideals?
We were going to change the world and, for a short time, we did. Ours was the generation that stopped a war. Although Canada stayed out of Vietnam, we welcomed over 30,000 Americans who came here to avoid killing and being killed and we gave refuge to more than 50,000 “boat people” after Vietnam fell. We stood up for civil rights and women’s equality. We marched for a nuclear free world and even started Greenpeace, right here in Vancouver, because we thought saving our planet was important. But as I think about this election and the state our country is in, I remember a few years ago my son telling me that his generation was sick to death of hearing about all the noble things our generation had done and asking the question, “What have you done lately?”
Thinking about that question today, the only answer I can come up with is that we SOLD OUT!
It would be bad enough to say we sat idly by as our government destroyed our democracy with bills like the Orwellian-named “Fair Elections” Act; eliminated our freedoms by passing its anti-terrorist bill C-51; passed Bill C-24, making it possible for someone like Calgary’s Mayor Nenshi to be stripped of Canadian citizenship even though he was born in Toronto; muzzled or vindictively destroyed anyone who disagreed with them (Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission president Linda Keen); turned the peacekeeping forces that we were so proud of into a war machine; gutted environmental protections for the benefit of big (mostly foreign) corporations; sold off our natural resources (along with our wheat board) to other countries; allowed entire industries to be wiped out and well paid jobs to be shipped to third world countries; widened the income inequality gap; increased the number of homeless and allowed 1 in 5 children to live in poverty; slashed social programs and eliminated safety nets (healthcare, EI, support for veterans, the national child care program); increased the age of eligibility for OAS and changed retirement age for CPP; took aim at women by slashing funding, closing offices and removing “equality” from the stated goals of the Status of Women ministry; drastically cut funding of the CBC and the arts (because “nobody cares about the arts”); made secondary education less and less affordable for anyone but the privileged upper class; waged war on First Nations by cancelling the Kelowna Accord, ignoring Supreme Court decisions and refusing to uphold laws and policies set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (even refusing to ensure they had the barest necessities such as access to clean drinking water); and abandoned our injured veterans saying we had “no moral obligation” to them.
It would be bad enough to say that we ignored their secrecy (European and TPP trade agreements; avoiding the media or screening their questions; gagging scientists, federal public servants and their own MPs; delaying, restricting or denying public and media requests under the Access to Information act); their lies (F-35 stealth fighter jets); their corruption ($50 million in taxpayers’ money funnelled into Tony Clement’s riding under the guise of G8 expenses, the artificial lake); their misuse of funds and attitudes of entitlement (Bev Oda’s $16 orange juice, Peter McKay’s personal use of military helicopters); the laws they broke (Harper breaking his own fixed-date election law, the In-and-Out scandal in which the party exceeded national campaign spending limits by moving funds through local ridings, Robocalls); their criminal charges and convictions (Dean Del Mastro – Harper’s “ethics” spokesman jailed for crimes committed while sitting as an MP, top aide Bruce Carson convicted of 5 counts of fraud); Harper appointing Senators in clear violation of requirements regarding residency and the consistent pattern of unethical conduct of other Harper appointees.
It would be bad enough to say we did not pay attention to all the other abuses of this government, such as being found in contempt of Parliament (for refusing to release costs on programs to opposition MPs); proroguing Parliament 4 times and shutting it down for 181 days; re-naming the Government of Canada the Harper Government; eliminating the long-form census; omnibus bills; attacks on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; spying on environmental and aboriginal activists; auditing charities and non-profits (all of them environmental, civil society, anti-poverty, foreign aid and human rights groups); using tax dollars to fund political ads and propaganda for oil companies; retroactively passing legislation to protect themselves from crimes already committed (the shredding of long gun registry data); and last but certainly not least, the Senate scandal (the $90,000 cheque, who knew about it and when, attempts to interfere with an official audit).
Yes, it would be bad enough to say we just ignored all of these things (and more) but the truth is that not only did we do nothing to stop them, we gave them our support! We became the establishment that we fought against – those people over 30 that we did not trust (and for good reason). We voted for this government and according to polls, we are the one age group that is overwhelmingly going to vote for them again.
Now, I realize that not all of you voted for the former Reformers, who have convincingly painted themselves as the Conservative party of old, and I realize that not all of you will vote for them on October 19th, but for those of you who will, I have a few questions.
1. Why? Why would you support a government as secretive, corrupt and hellbent on destroying our freedoms as this one? Someone suggested to me that it is because you care more about your money than anything else but that simply does not make any sense. When Harper took over, the economy was growing at 3% a year, there was a surplus of over $13-billion and our debt was $492-billion (and falling). Since being elected, he has run 6 straight deficits and the federal debt is now $615-billion (and rising). Whether he admits it or not, we are in a recession with our loonie tanking, unemployment climbing and commodity prices plunging. Why would you trust a government with this kind of a track record to keep your money safe?
2. When? When did you abandon your values and decide that lying, cheating, stealing and breaking the law were not a problem? When did you stop caring about other people and become okay with our military bombing innocent civilians, with children in this country starving, seniors having to choose between groceries and medication, people having to work 2 or 3 jobs in order to feed their families or keep a roof over their heads, with healthcare cuts that forced mental patients onto the streets, with jobs being given to temporary foreign workers while qualified Canadians went unemployed and with a dead child being washed up on a beach on the other side of the world while we ignore a refugee crisis that we are at least partially responsible for creating with our bombs?
3. Do you have grandchildren? Do you care if they grow up to be honest, ethical, compassionate adults? Do you teach them values? Do you teach them your “new” values – the ones that you accept from your government – that the end justifies the means and it is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, break the law and do anything else you have to do in order to get what you want? Or do you teach them to do as I say, not as I do because that always works out so well?
4. How? How do you plan on explaining to your grandchildren that you didn’t care? You didn’t care enough about their future to stand up for healthcare, education, the environment, their rights, democracy and for honesty and decency? How will you answer if they ask why you didn’t love them enough to protect them?
5. And finally, can you give me just one reason to justify voting for this man who vowed that no one would recognize Canada when he was finished. Did you really hate our country that much the way it was?
Canadians used to have much to be proud of and we can be proud again. Our country’s best days do not have to be behind us. October 19th may be the most important election of our lifetime. We have a choice. We can continue down this path of destruction, giving up our ideals, our freedoms, our democracy and our very identity or we can change direction and start repairing the damage, healing the wounds and restoring our standing in the world.
This is our chance to show that our generation still has values we are willing to stand up for and we can still make a difference. It is your opportunity to show your grandchildren that their futures matter and you will do everything in your power to protect them. By living your values, you will be leaving them a legacy. They will learn by your example and will never have to ask why you didn’t care.
PM Stephen Harper addresses a youth delegation (Flickr/Stephen Harper CC licence)
To: The Rt. Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
Dear Prime Minister,
Most issues we face today we’ve faced before.
For an older person like myself there is a strong sense of déjà vu. We’ve been through deficits and surpluses; prosperity and recessions; government overspending andgovernment parsimony; and there’s always a list of special issues to be replaced by new special issues in time for the next election.
The sign of a great leader is one who takes a very large, seemingly insoluble problem and deals with it in the interests of the nation. Not many have done that in our history – mostly we just muddle along, watching the United States and the UK, and keeping our heads down.
Canada stingy on constitutional reform
We’ve been shockingly inattentive to our corporate make up, or Constitution. The United States has amended its constitution 33 times since 1787. Great Britain, through its flexible constitution, is constantly amending theirs. We act as if to do so would be like performing self surgery without an anesthetic.
In our recent history the only major constitutional surgery was done by Pierre Trudeau in 1982 when the Constitution was patriated from the United Kingdom to Canada. I was a member of Mr. Trudeau’s Cabinet Ministers on the Confederation (2 from each province, 2 from the federal government) and watched the process unfold. Much was done during those years to address difficulties but since the deal breakers were the Amending Formula and The Charter, most work was there, with other matters to be dealt with in due course.
MPs are powerless
PM Harper enters the House behind Governor General David Johnston for a Speech from the Throne (Flickr/Stephen Harper CC licence)
Since then – and much of the blame for this has been deservedly laid at your feet – the Commons has become a nest of political eunuchs where no longer men and women meet to deal with issues of their choosing but a place about as democratic as the Reichstag in the 1930s.
I do not exaggerate, Mr. Prime Minister. The plain fact is that a government MP has no power whatsoever and is now your pet poodle. He says what you tell him to say, asks what you order him to ask, and otherwise keeps his mouth shut. No Tory MP dares question a government decision on the Commons floor, even if it’s vital to his constituency.
On behalf of many in our community on Howe Sound, where tankers are proposed, and approved by you, I asked your MP, John Weston, in writing, to explain this dramatic discriminatory practice. He refused to do so!
Why, Prime Minister, why? Are you actually ashamed of your untenable Eastern bias but not man enough to admit it?
Committees’ role disappears
On another matter, The Parliamentary Committee, which we inherited from the UK House of Commons, is supposed to be the way backbench MPs can hold the government’s feet to the fire.
As you know, Sir, this simply doesn’t happen. The Committee has been stolen from the backbencher and made a dummy, with you the ventriloquist since you, not the MPs, select the Chair and no uncomfortable agenda arises without you stepping in to stop it.
Independent thinking: a political death sentence
It goes much further – I fear I have only scratched the surface. If a Tory MP does what his conscience dictates and it crosses your policy, he risks of being tossed out of caucus, the party, and never again allowed to run for the party – a political death sentence. Your MPs know that and it assures you 100% control of their minds and souls, never mind their actions! How the hell can such a person be my Member of Parliament?
The consequence of all of this is that the Tory MP, elected by citizens to represent their issues, at all times does precisely what you tell him to do.
There are also the practical considerations of the carrot and the stick. It’s entirely in your hands as to which MP is promoted to parliamentary secretary or cabinet minister or any other office. It is up to you alone whether they’re fired – no cause need be shown, there’s no severance pay. You have unconstrained control, a privileged hitherto reserved to God.
Even lesser matters such as going to a warm island in the winter to attend a useless conference is yours to offer the MP who behaves himself.
UK MPs far more rebellious than Canadians
What are you afraid of? In the Mother of Parliaments, Prime Ministers often lose votes, even “three line whip” votes, and life goes on. They don’t resign but call a confidence vote which has been the practice here since Lester Pearson.
Here’s some history of lost major votes in the UK:
In the 1st Harold Wilson government (1965-70) – six times
In the Edward Heath government (1970-74) 6 times
In the 2nd Harold Wilson government, (1974-6) – 25 times
His successor, Jim Callaghan (1976-9), 34 times
Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) 4 times
John Major (1990-97) 6 times
Tony Blair (1997-07) 4 times
Gordon Brown (2007-11) 3 times
In the last 4 years, David Cameron was beaten 6 times
Remember, in all of those defeats, a “three-line whip” was in effect and members were ordered to vote for the government, “or else”.
Opportunity for a positive legacy
Tom Mulcair supports electoral reform, as do the Greens and Grits
Now, prime minister, you can go down in history as a great prime minister if you sincerely commit to serious reform and are reelected.
I should note that your NDP, Liberal and Green counterparts have each backed proportional representation or some variety of serious electoral reform should they form government this October. Change is clearly in the air on this front. My concern here is what happens should you defy recent polls and form government again yourself.
Nobody expects you to have the magic bullet. To redo the way we elect MPs and the powers we give them is open to many options which must be thrashed out. The power of the PM and the cabinet is another matter of debate. There are those who stand firmly for proportional representation or a combination of that and first past the post and there are those who want transferable ballots and so on. I daresay, however, you will be hard-pressed to find too many, excepting party hacks, supporting retention of the present system.
There must be Reform! The stakes are very high, sir, since despite what you might think from 34 Sussex Drive, there is a lot of unrest in the land. Surely, the days when less than 40% of the popular vote achieve 100% of the power must be put behind us. Is there any wonder so many Canadians don’t bother to vote?
I close by saying this, prime minister: I don’t think you want to do this. I believe that you enjoy your position as a dictator, with everyone around you obeying you in all matters, large or small. I don’t think you could stand your own MPs being critical of your policies, much less voting against your wishes.
You, sir, are quite prepared to put the ego of Stephen Harper ahead of the best interests of the country.
Prove me wrong by pledging major reform to Parliament and the voting system.
I’ll not hold my breath, nor, I daresay, will many other Canadians.
Editor’s note: This letter is open to republication by any group or individual, without permission required from the author or publisher.
Green candidate Ken Melamed doesn’t see a future for Woodfibre LNG (facebook/Mitch Stookey)
Local NDP and Green candidates are steadfastly opposed to the Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish, reveals a recent series of one-on-one interviews.
Meanwhile, the Liberal candidate for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, is on the fence, while Tory incumbent John Weston remains predictably supportive of the controversial project.
According to the survey (see full results here), conducted by Propeller Strategy – a non-profit group with a focus on environmental and public interest issues in BC – former West Vancouver Mayor Goldsmith-Jones has “four conditions that would need to be in place before Woodfibre LNG could be properly reviewed.”
[quote]The criteria included a marine strategy, a climate strategy, genuine consultation and most importantly an audit is needed of the new environmental laws resulting from changes made by the Conservative government.[/quote]
But for NDP candidate Larry Koopman and the Greens’ Ken Melamed, a former Whistler Mayor, the answer is a hard “No”, as Woodfibre clearly lacks the social licence required to proceed.
Woodfibre wrong for many reasons
Woodfibre LNG would see large tankers travelling up Howe Sound (Eoin Finn)
According to a media release from Propeller Strategy, the “LNG export industry is not appropriate for BC,” says Melamed, nor is it “consistent with the values of Canadians and a strong economic policy.”
Propeller conducted a similar survey of municipal candidates throughout the region before last year’s election, which revealed that a staggering 94% of respondents were opposed to Woodfibre. Those indications were borne out post-election, as Squamish took a harder tack with Woodfibre, denying permits to build an expanded pipeline connected to the project through the Squamish estuary.
Propeller’s Stan Proboszcz, who carried out the interviews with several constituents in attendance, commented, “Important local issues are often absent from federal election campaigns.”
[quote]Woodfibre LNG will put the local economy, environment and citizen safety at risk, and voters deserve clear positions from all candidates on this issue before the election.[/quote]
Justin Trudeau continues to defy expectation (Flickr/Canada 2020 CC licence)
Churchill once stated that the best time to predict events was after they had happened and I think he was probably right.
The current federal election is demonstrating that predictions at any time are pretty iffy but in a hugely long campaign like this one, they’re positively dangerous.
I find myself flying all over the place, which is hardly unusual considering my record on these matters. The benefit of this experience of incompetence is, of course, that you learn that changes always take place and often very rapidly. The question is whether or not this, like logarithms in high school, is quickly learned and just as quickly forgotten, as has hitherto been my case.
Trudeau’s surprising comeback
For example, I doubt very much that anybody would have disagreed with me a month or so ago that Justin Trudeau had badly soiled his copybook with his support of Bill C-51. He was supposed to be through by the opinions of many pundits and was given no hope up against the other three in the great debate. I probably said so too.
The fact of the matter is he did very well in the debate, particularly against the prime minister. C-51 has been called a black mark on Trudeau’s record, but that’s all it is, and everybody has those. To me, it is a very serious black mark, but to the voting public, as time passes, I suspect it will be forgotten in favour of whatever the latest hot issue is. He has already shown signs that rumours of his political death were much exaggerated.
The real issues of this election campaign will likely not emerge until the last month and, I would wager, not all of them are even thought about at this moment. At least that’s the way it usually works.
Harper’s negative ads backfire
I think, looking back, it was fortunate for Trudeau that the Tories did all those vicious attack ads early because the impact has faded and after the debates Trudeau at least looks as if he could be a leader if needs be. In other words, his task was to look better than presented by typical Tory attack ads – and he did.
I also believe those ads helped Mr. Mulcair. Those seeking another choice than Tory just might say, “OK, so Trudeau’s not ready, but Mulcair looks as if he is”. This is not quite bringing deserters back to the Tories as intended.
Mulcair looks strong – especially in BC
Mulcair with candidate Joe Cressy (Flickr/Joe Cressy/Tim Ehlich)
Thomas Mulcair has been seen as the knight in shining armour who has flashed out of nowhere to become the saviour of the nation. So far, he has weathered well and is certainly doing extremely well in British Columbia, according to the most recent polls.
I must say at this point that I hardly trust polls and I am ever mindful of Sir Humphrey in “Yes Minister” explaining to Bernard how by asking a different series of questions on the same subject, you can get two very separate answers.
Moreover, I believe that a lot of people lie because they consider it none of the pollster’s business or, like me, promptly hang the phone up with the international words for “go away” and go back to their dinner.
BC NDP opposition is non-existent
I think Mr. Mulcair has something else going for him in British Columbia. Past NDP national leaders have had to concern themselves with the policies of the provincial NDP and, there being none, there’s nothing for Mulcair to worry about.
If, for example, John Horgan and Co. took a strong stand against LNG, especially in Howe Sound and in Saanich Inlet, Mr. Mulcair might have a problem being wishy-washy and avoiding the subject. Fortunately for him, he finds the local NDP in the midst of what should be an impossible task – making Christy Clark look good.
BCNDP Leader John Horgan talking LNG (Photo: BCNDP)
Horgan, in thrall to former premier Dan Miller, is a firm supporter of LNG and quite prepared to desert supporters and those who would be, in places where plants are proposed and people are upset.
You may remember that when Mr. Miller briefly became the premier of the province, he immediately grabbed John Horgan, who was in business in the private sector, and brought him in by his side. Those who know tell me that Mr. Miller is like an uncle or perhaps a godfather to Mr. Horgan, who adores the former premier and would never cross him. Since Dan Miller is a devoted supporter of bitumen pipelines and tanker traffic – not to mention Resource Works, the shills for Woodfibre LNG – it can be understood why Mr. Horgan has suddenly become a fossil fuel capitalist.
That he has been able to drag his caucus into taking this position shows that none of them understands how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work and the critical duty of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to oppose.
Having said that, I think that Mr. Mulcair has done well in British Columbia and this province is now his to lose.
Don’t count Harper out yet
I am not prepared to write off the prime minister at this stage, for the following reason:
Suppose, as I suspect, that Mr. Trudeau is making some inroads in BC and that he and Mulcair become extremely competitive one with the other – that may open the door for Mr. Harper to do much better here than anyone now predicts.
May shines
Elizabeth May being interviewed during Calgary Stampede (Flickr/ItzaFineDay CC licence)
The outstanding candidate in my view is clearly Elizabeth May. Those who watched the debate or have had the privilege of hearing her speak, or both, will know that she is a very substantial person indeed, steeped in the history and tradition of this, her adopted country, and with a far wider vision than just the environment – although that is pretty damned important.
She not only demands electoral and parliamentary reform, unlike others, she understands the subjects.
There is some hope that the Greens will do well in parts of Canada – at this point Vancouver Island looks like it’s in the hopeful section.(I make no secret of my support of the Greens.)
Trudeau has leg up with media
Let me get back to Mr. Trudeau. He has the advantage, if advantage it is, of support from the mainstream media – now that their beloved Tories seem to be heading for the ditch. They’re horrified at the thought of an NDP government and are turning their fond attention to the Grits in desperation. You may have noticed that the stories about Justin Trudeau and the pictures of him are far more jolly and upbeat in the last couple of weeks than they once were.
Although I am by nature one who would normally be a Liberal, they fell from my favour under Pierre Trudeau because of his attitude towards British Columbia, especially exemplified by him giving the finger to some protesters in Salmon Arm. Moreover, he, and the election gang surrounding him, like Keith Davey and Jim Coutts, worked out the obvious mathematics of concentrating all efforts on Ontario and Quebec and to hell with the rest of the country, especially British Columbia.
In his last speech in the debate, Trudeau, Jr. tried to say that his father had instilled in him an appreciation of the nation as a whole. Having been alive at that time and up close to Trudeau, Sr. during constitutional debates, I don’t believe that crap for a second.
When Mark Anthony gave as part of his oration on the death of Caesar “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones“, he certainly wasn’t foreseeing Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who’s now subject of a posthumous love-in, the evidence be damned!
Now, the sins of the father are not passed onto the son – neither are the good deeds for that matter – and Justin Trudeau will have to make his own way to the hearts of Lotuslanders. That he has family connections here, including a terrible tragedy, does not make him a British Columbian – something that one cannot easily acquire any more than one can easily become a Quebecer. It does, however, give him a leg up on Harper and Mulcair and that could prove to be important. For example, when Trudeau reads about the childish behaviour of UBC, at least he knows where it is, having once been a student.
For once, BC counts
I don’t remember the election where it wasn’t solemnly intoned that BC counted and I’m hard-pressed to think of one where it actually did. This year, with the strong possibility of a minority government, and with reform of the system in the wind, perhaps every MP will finally make a difference.
I am going to leave it at that without any predictions because, in my dotage, I think I have finally learned that October 19 is a hell of a long way away and a great deal not only can happen but probably will.
While you are out this weekend enjoying the last days of summer on the beach and the RCMP come by to check whether your cooler is full of (gasp) beer or wine, you have every right to tell them (I would suggest politely) that no, they cannot look in your cooler.
Now I am not a lawyer (although I did consult one to write this article), so don’t come looking for me if the whole exchange doesn’t go smoothly, but the law is very clear in Canada that the police only have a right to search your cooler if they have reason to suspect you have alcohol or something else illegal in inside.
And this extends to all sorts of other things, like driving your car, which reminds me of the old police shows where the local rebel is pulled over and when he asks the sheriff why he was pulled over the sheriff pulls out his baton, smashes a tail light and says, “broken tail light.”
Even the redneck sheriff knows that in order to pull a person over he has to have a reason for doing so.
In Canada, we have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We have the right to go about our lives without being bothered by the police, unless the police have a justifiable reason for doing so.
[quote]Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.[/quote]
While section eight of the Charter protects all sorts of things, one of the biggies is our right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
So unless you are acting like a drunk idiot at the beach this weekend, it is reasonable for you to expect your privacy and the RCMP cannot butt into that privacy by demanding (or even politely asking) to see the contents of your cooler, backpack or whatever other personal belongings you have with you.
National insecurity
If it is the case that the police, or any other form of law enforcement, are not allowed to search you or our belongings without reason, how could it be okay in Canada for law enforcement to search and seize our personal information and digital conversations without probable cause?
The RCMP might not have reasonable grounds to search your drink cooler while you lay on the beach, but under new laws rammed through with little debate by Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, law enforcement agencies like the RCMP and the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), will have more power than ever to monitor, collect and share the information you are transmitting on that fancy new iPhone 6 Plus of yours, or any other electronic device you have.
Your right to privacy is extended to online activities, which was confirmed in a 2013 Supreme Court of Canada case involving Telus, in which the court ruled that Canadians should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to electronic transmissions like text messaging and emails.
So what is the government to do if it has a burning desire to monitor more of its citizens’ activities – especially online – in the name of national security?
What the Harper government did with Bill C-51 is loosen the definition of what behaviours are considered an indication of potentially illegal activity. By broadening the definition of what activities are considered a possible threat to national security, the government now has more reasons to monitor your behaviour.
Loosening and broadening the definition of what is an indication of possible criminal activity is the key trick in Bill C-51 and harms your right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
“Critical infrastructure”
Burnaby Mountain/Kinder Morgan arrest (Photo: Brad Hornick/facebook)
It is in the definitions section of the final version of C-51 that was passed June 15, 2015 where we can see the introduction of very broad terms to define what is an “activity that undermines the security of Canada.”
For instance, one such activity that would undermine the security of Canada (according to C-51) is the “interference with critical infrastructure.” In the context of pipeline protests this is a cause for concern for those citizens who want to show up and voice their opposition to the construction of a pipeline.
In the definitions section of C-51 there is a statement that, on the surface, would seemingly protect pipeline protestors: “For greater certainty, it does not include advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.”
But it is the broadness and vagueness of this text that is concerning, especially when Conservative party members have a history of labelling those speaking up on environmental issues as “eco-terrorists.”
Human rights, Canada’s reputation at risk
Again though, I am not a lawyer, but here’s what a group of prominent experts, including 106 law professors, had to say about C-51:
[quote]Protecting human rights and protecting public safety are complementary objectives, but experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security. Given the secrecy around national security activities, abuses can go undetected and without remedy. This results not only in devastating personal consequences for the individuals, but a profoundly negative impact on Canada’s reputation as a rights-respecting nation.[/quote]
Stephen Harper, the hypocrite
The kicker here is that while the Harper government wants to invent new reasons to watch what you do, the same does not go for Prime Minister Harper himself, who is so tight with his own information that he is rarely even willing to talk to the media!
Stephen Harper wants you to be willing to give up your privacy, but is not willing to make his activities and those of his government more transparent and open.
Glenn Greenwald, the journalist and constitutional lawyer who worked with whistleblower Edward Snowden to expose the massive intrusion of privacy by the US government against its own citizens and countries around the world, has a very well-thought-out opinion on why people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy and why if you are not doing anything wrong, you should still expect that privacy.
And on the hypocrisy of those, like Stephen Harper, who call for less privacy, but take steps to further protect their own privacy, Greenwald had this to say:
[quote]…the people that say that, that privacy isn’t really important, they don’t actually believe it. And the way that you know that they don’t actually believe it, is that while they say with their words ‘privacy doesn’t matter,’ with their actions they take all kinds of steps to safeguard their privacy. They put passwords on their email and their social media accounts, they put locks on their bedroom and bathroom doors. All steps designed to prevent other people from entering what they consider their private realm and knowing what it is that they don’t want other people to know.[/quote]
Watching over your back
In this election, like most elections in recent history, public safety is a hot issue, and every party wants you to think they have your back when it comes to protecting you, your family, friends and fellow citizens.
But there is an important line that needs to be drawn between watching your back and watching over your back.
Our right to a reasonable expectation of privacy is stated pretty clearly in our country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a right that past generations fought and died for and not something to be taken lightly.
And our right to privacy is definitely not something that should be compromised by a new set of ham-fisted laws that were rammed into existence with little debate.
So vote smart in this election if privacy is something important to you, because it matters, and what is a law today can be changed by a new government tomorrow.
According to Stephen Harper, the coming election offers a choice between the certainty of Conservative economic expertise on the one hand…or the risk of Liberal or New Democrat inexperience. However, a closer examination reveals a different picture. It is the Conservatives who have the shaky economic record.
All his eggs in one basket
Mark Robinson/Flickr cc licence
For example, instead of diversifying the economy, Harper has put all his eggs in one basket (the tar sands). Farmers on the prairies know all about diversification. To cover the possibilities of crop failure or an unexpected drop in market price, they plant a variety of crops – wheat, canola, legumes, oats, barley, flax, or some such mix. They know it would be disastrous to speculate on one crop…and be wrong! Harper has done just that with oil. An inexcusable risk that went wrong!
The Conservatives have tried to project the image of business expertise by showcasing a “balanced budget”. The Huffington Post examined this budget and listed “Seven Conservative Tricks to Faking a Balanced Budget”. It wasn’t balanced at all. In fact, the Conservatives hardly know what a balanced budget looks like. They have produced nothing but “deficit budgets” in each of the previous seven years. That is why our national debt has sky-rocketed in the Harper years.
Worst Canadian economic record since WWII
Harper warns us never to trust the spendthrift Liberals. Our memories are so short! It was during the Liberal years that the two “spendthrifts”, Chrétien and Paul Martin, reduced the national debt by an unprecedented $81 billion. Since then, Harper has increased the national debt by $176 billion – also unprecedented! Economic expertise?
[quote]Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are running the most poorly performing economy the country has seen since the Second World War.*[/quote]
Their study “examined the economic data from nine Canadian governments…using 16 indicators of economic progress, including job creation, Gross Domestic Product growth, export growth, household debt and real personal income.
“The Harper government ranked last or second last in 13 of the 16 indicators”, resulting in “a score of 8.05 out of 9, with 9 being the worst possible score.” Based on economic performance, the Harper government was rock bottom. And at the other end of the scale, “Lester Pearson has been the most successful prime minister, followed by Pierre Trudeau.” *
Child poverty, homelessness reach abysmal levels
But we hardly need such studies to prove their economic ineptitude. It is obvious. Under the Conservatives we have had more children living in poverty, more homeless people, more people depending on soup kitchens, and greater family indebtedness. Highly paid jobs have been replaced by low paid part-time jobs with no benefits. And young people despair of ever owning their own homes.
Most damning is their tax policy. They keep reducing taxation on the rich and on Corporations – forcing government agencies to reduce services to everyone else – thus creating more billionaires each year and more paupers. Good economics for the top 1%, but horrible for the rest.
Putting economy above planet
Even worse, is the Conservative policy of promoting the development of the Alberta tar sands at the cost of permanent damage to the world’s climate. The greenhouse gases created are causing droughts in the best farmland; are wiping out the glaciers and snow fields which are reservoirs for next summer’s water; are destroying forests (by diseases and fires); are destroying the oceans (by acidification and overheating); and are causing massive damage to islands, coastlines and port cities (by rising oceans and extreme storms). The harm done to people around the world is much greater than the paltry economic benefit to Alberta. Is this good economics?
Harper’s request for us to “stay the course” with the Conservatives is like staying the course with the Titanic. Contrary to Harper’s propaganda, Conservative economics is a disaster.
* Jeremy J. Nuttall, The Tyee.com, July 31 2015
Doug Carrick writes regular articles for the Hornby Island “First Edition”, the Denman Island “Flagstone” and occasionally for the “Island Tides” and other publications.
Before I get onto the federal election, let me say I have never been more depressed about governance in this country.
A recent note from a reader pointed out the atrocious record of the Christy Clark government in erasing emails, losing emails, redacting emails (that’s bureaucratese for blacking out anything that might possibly embarrass the government), throwing sand in the gears for anyone who wants public information and on it goes. What struck me is that this egregiously evil behaviour is buried in scandals in the Health Ministry and the Ministry of Children and Families, the skyrocketing provincial debt since Christy Clark took over, not to mention her look of teenage adoration when dealing with out and out crooks in her LNG giveaways; all while utterly neglecting her duty to protect our homes, coastlines and waters from the inevitable consequences of her LNG pipe dreams.
The extent of her reckless negligence is that it’s hard to concentrate on individual outrages like censorship of public information. Moreover, she is never mildly challenged by the “poodle press” which bury her shenanigans in the recesses of their rags, if they mention them at all, while giving “Position ‘A'” to the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation.
Too bad May couldn’t be PM…
The Federal election is a bankruptcy of real choices. The outstanding candidate by far, and I apologize for damning her with faint praise, is Elizabeth May. It’s a shame that she won’t be prime minister. Far from being just an environmentalist, she has a firm understanding of the history of this country, the geographical distortions and demographic differences, and the sad state of our parliamentary system. She also has a deep love and understanding of our province.
Ms. May has profited from her experience in Parliament and knows that it doesn’t work because of the deliberate maneuverings of Stephen Harper. She recognizes that MPs must have their power and dignity restored and will, win or lose, do her best to do something about it. Any who have heard Elizabeth May speak (indeed just watched the debates where, despite Harper’s constant interruptions, she impressed all) know that she’s an outstanding person who’ll serve us well in whatever role she’s called upon to play.
The Canadian Gestapo
Pipeline protesters are criminalized under the Harper regime (Burnaby Mountain Updates/facebook)
Little need be said about Harper since so much already has been. Surely, the hearing to find out whether or not CSIS and the RCMP illegally tapped the telephones of and spied on environmentalists tells all about Harper and the C-51 mentality of present-day Tories. That this could happen in Canada is horrible enough; that the prime minister approves of this behaviour assures all Canadians that it’s unsafe in Canada to dissent from the establishment opinion without being spied upon by the Canadian Gestapo, and tells us all we need know about Harper. Another four years of his progress towards absolute power is too frightening to contemplate.
Lest you think I exaggerate, remember this – no Conservative MP has any power whatsoever to do anything or say anything on his or her own. The PMO tells them what to say, when to say it, what questions to ask, what speeches to make, what press releases to issue and, of course, how to vote. Any independence is subject to political capital punishment.
Harper: LNG too dangerous for East coast, OK for BC
Tory MPs no longer represent their constituencies and only care about those within them that “vote right”. My MP, John Weston, refuses to deal with uncomfortable questions such as:
This though he was asked by mail and publicly. Just one of many examples.
On our most significant issue, the proposed LNG plant in Squamish, Weston, on orders from Harper, pressured the West Vancouver Council to rescind its opposition, rather than listen to them and take their concerns back to government. They told him to get stuffed.
We are badly handicapped by the absence of a Free Press, including true investigating journalists and dedicated critics as we once had. Let me give you a case in point.
Stephen Harper is stacking The Supreme Court of Canada with right-wingers so that the conservative agenda, which includes violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms whenever necessary, will prevail. This has been largely ignored but independence of the judiciary from political bias goes to the very root of our system.
In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the US Supreme Court and all hell broke loose. The issue is still raised when US Supreme Court judges are appointed.
Why was there such a big fuss?
For the same reason there should be one here.
The Court has been set up to be “independent” of the executive and legislative branches – and for a good reason. If most members of the Court are just toadies of the Prime Minister who appointed them, then he can violate the Constitution to his heart’s content, comfortable that his Court won’t interfere.
The entire process of appointing Supreme Court of Canada judges is badly flawed and it’s a cinch for an unscrupulous PM to manoeuvre to enhance his own political agenda. Harper certainly has no desire to change this and, instead, given another four years to appoint more right wingers, he’ll unblushingly do so.
The question is, where are Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair on this issue? It is a deadly serious one, even though you would never know that reading the Postmedia press or, indeed, the Toronto Globe and Mail.
House of ill repute
What about the disgraceful state of the House of Commons? Does any leader truly intend to give power and dignity back to the MP and thus weaken their own influence? If so, they haven’t shown much inclination thus far.
Justin Trudeau talks a good game and speaks of easing party discipline but that’s partly because he’s running scared of Mr. Mulcair. His record is less than the glittering. For example, he suspended two MPs for alleged misconduct with two female NDP MPs. Given no opportunity to publicly defend themselves, they stand convicted in the public mind and their political careers destroyed without recourse. Does that sound like open government to you?
In Mulcair’s time as leader, not one NDP MP has taken an independent line, such is his ironclad discipline. Does that sound like a man who favours freedom for his MPs?
Grits, NDP weak on pipelines
Mulcair could be clearer – and tougher – on pipelines
I am, frankly, more concerned about the leaders in terms of their policies towards British Columbia.
I need hardly say, then, one of the critical issues to British Columbia is the environment and, in particular, pipelines, LNG plants and the fossil fuel issue in general.
Here is what Mr. Trudeau has to say – and one is reminded of Mackenzie King, when during World War II, he famously said “conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription”.
Trudeau, for his part, has stated his support for pipelines done the “right way that is sustainable, that has community support and buy-in, and that fits into a long-term strategy of not just a sustainable environment but a sustainable economy.”
Now don’t you feel better?
Mulcair isn’t a hell of a lot better. He doesn’t condemn the Kinder Morgan expansion but has denounced the National Energy Board review process, saying an NDP government would “start a new Kinder Morgan assessment based on tougher environmental legislation and a more open public consultation process”. That’s political double talk for “we’ll get rid of the present, obviously fixed process and bring in more subtle, fixed process of our own before approving the pipeline”.
Time to take a stand against LNG in Howe Sound
Citizens fight to protect Howe Sound (Future of Howe Sound Society)
On LNG, I say without hesitation that Howe Sound belongs to all British Columbia, not just those of us who live on it. I spent much of my boyhood there. I learned about the outdoors there. I have never lost my love for this beautiful fjord – the southernmost in our province – and, like so many of my neighbours from North Vancouver to Sechelt and beyond, know how fragile it is.
We’ve seen it restored over the last few decades after industry and a mine closed. I look out and see Orcas back and migratory fish have returned to their old spawning routes. Thanks to a lot of hard work by not just locals but British Columbians all over the province, Howe Sound is Howe Sound again, yet both governments are bent on destroying it for a few pieces of silver.
Everyone knows about the proposed LNG plant for Squamish – everybody, evidently, except Messrs Trudeau and Mulcair. If they do know about it, they’re keeping it to themselves. Harper doesn’t know about it either, but then he he’s always in favour of anything a fossil fuel company does anywhere, no matter how they do it. John Weston, our Tory MP, is as useless as tits on a bull – a glowing example of a Harper Tory who does precisely what he’s told and whose mantra is “the environment is the economy”. God help us!
This issue should to bother the hell out of all of us. Woodfibe LNG is owned by a big time tax-evader and an environmental rapist. Moreover, as readers of this column will know, Howe Sound is demonstrably too narrow for LNG tankers. And both governments support the crook.
Harper has BC on short leash
Christy Clark and Stephen Harper meet with firefighters (BC Govt/Flickr)
I have a theory that I will try out on you.
Remember the HST debacle? As I recall, at the end of that exercise, British Columbia owed Ottawa some billion and a half dollars, more or less.
My suspicion simply is this: Harper and Clark have an understanding that if Christy cooperates with him like a good little girl on fossil fuel issues, especially pipelines and LNG, no one will push for the HST money. That’s why there’s no opposition from her and she hasn’t complained about the phoney National Energy Board. In my theory, these two are hand-in-hand political lovers and will be as long as Christy behaves herself. (Granted, there was some mention back in 2012 of a 5-year plan to repay the HST monies without interest, but we’ve heard nothing of it since, so it does beg the question of what happened on that file).
If I am wrong, and Christy has repaid or is repaying this money, The Common Sense Canadian will say so promptly and prominently and I will withdraw my suspicion.
Whether this theory is correct or not, we British Columbians will have to fight this Woodfibre LNG outrage on our own, for we’ll clearly get no help from any prime minister to come unless by a blessed miracle it’s Elizabeth May.
Thus it would seem that the only thing British Columbians can hope for is a nicer person at Sussex Drive.
Leaders like the NDP’s Tom Mulcair are looking West (Laurel L. Russwurm / Flickr)
Republished from the ECOreport
The race is on. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament early, to launch what is expected to be the most expensive election in Canadian history. “Upwards of $700 million” could be spent on this campaign and a large chunk of the contributions to all parties will be claimed as tax deductions. According to Dr. Maxwell Cameron, from UBC’s Department of Political Science, BC may determine the outcome.
Battleground BC
“There are many battleground ridings in British Columbia. We have 42 seats, due to the redistricting, and many of those seats are in play. I don’t think the NDP or the Conservatives can hope to put together any sort of majority without substantial support in BC,” said Cameron.
Polls can be deceptive, “as they do not reflect how support is distributed across ridings,” but Cameron believes both the NDP and Liberals are picking up support. The NDP could win between 22 and 25 seats. The Liberals will probably do better than in 2011 (when they won 2 seats). The Greens “might pick up one (additional) seat, but I will be a bit surprised if they get more than that.”
Pipelines could swing votes
The recent bunker diesel spill in Vancouver’s English Bay was a wake-up call for citizens (Vancouver Aquarium)
“The pipeline issue is potentially a significant one, as there is a lot of opposition along the Coast and the Lower Mainland as well. Fears of tankers and spills have been very much at the front of voters minds,” said Cameron.
“It can be very disempowering (for communities) to be told this is what is going to happen and you don’t really have any say in the matter. I think the procedures we have in place, for doing the consultation, the stakeholder negotiations, environmental assessments etc are flawed. ”
[quote]The recent bunker fuel spill in Vancouver drew attention to the weakness of our response. Frankly when you close the Coast Guard station off Kitsilano (as the Conservative government did) and then you can’t respond to a spill, it looks like there is a responsibility for that.
On the other hand, this is a resource-dependent province, big parts of the province depend on timber, mining, oil and gas. There are going to be people who argue we need growth through exploitation of natural resources and those voters are more likely to go to the Conservatives.[/quote]
Slow economy hurts Harper
Canada appears to be heading into a recession, and the Conservatives are expected to campaign on their “record of sound fiscal management.” Expect Harper to say, “now is not the time to change.”
In reality, under the Conservatives economic “growth has been slow, slower than under any PM of recent memory. This is not all Harper’s fault, but he hasn’t made (the necessary) improvements to foster productivity and innovation.”
Even during times of prosperity, the benefits have primarily gone to the wealthy. Wages “have flatlined” for most Canadians, and unemployment has increased.
This is a trend that goes back to the 1980’s, with the adoption of international agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and cutbacks to public spending. It has continued under Harper.
Minority government a real possibility
Cameron added it is possible that neither the NDP or Conservatives will get a majority. “All of the current projections have us going into a minority government.” In that case, we could be going back to the polls again in 18 months.
Third Party Advertising laws during a federal election can be a challenge to navigate
Given that we could be going into a federal election here in Canada as early as this weekend (sigh) and I have a lot of folks asking me about the rules and regulations around election advertising by third parties, I thought I would share the most important points for those interested in knowing more about the regulations.
To be clear, I am not a lawyer, just a guy who can’t help but stick his nose in elections. I actually hope this summary sparks a few more people to get involved as third parties in this election.
What I am doing in this post is pulling verbatim the most important points, to provide an overview and a general understanding. If you are planning on advertising as a third party during the election, I would suggest reading the entire Elections Canada handbook on the rules and regulations and also consult a lawyer familiar with the area.
Do social media and websites count?
Off the top and before we get into too many details, the one big question I am asked is whether a website or posting content on Twitter and Facebook is considered election advertising and the answer to that question is clearly NO.
Messages sent or posted for free on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook
Messages sent by e-mail or through other messaging services (including texts sent through a cellular or mobile network)
Content posted on the third party’s website
Elections Canada does provide a clear scenario that is related to many of the questions I am getting about online election advertising – the following is not considered an election advertising expense:
[quote]During the election, the third party sets up a website to promote a registered party. Even though there are costs to produce and host websites, these are not election advertising expenses.[/quote]
[quote]Election messages communicated over the Internet are election advertising only if they have, or would normally have, a placement cost (and meet all the other requirements for election advertising).[/quote]
Again though, if you’re unsure, consult your friendly neighbourhood elections lawyer. Further down in this post are a few more details on what is considered an eligible advertising expense.
“For the purposes of election advertising, third party means a person or a group other than a candidate, registered party, or electoral district association of a registered party.”
And:
[quote]A third party may incur election advertising expenses totalling $500 or more in relation to a general election or a by-election if the third party is:
an individual who is a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident, or resides in Canada
a corporation, if it carries on business in Canada
a group, if the person responsible for the group is a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident, or resides in Canada[/quote]
“A person or group must register as a third party immediately after incurring election advertising expenses totalling $500 or more.”
And, “Registration cannot take place before the election is called. The person or group must apply for registration by submitting the completed and signed General Form – Third Party to Elections Canada.”
Here is the PDF form you need to fill out and send back to Elections Canada: General Form-Third Party.
[On a personal note, this is a free and easy process to do early in the election cycle and a pain once you get going and want to advertise.]
“A third party must appoint a financial agent before applying for registration. In addition, a third party has to appoint an auditor if it incurs election advertising expenses totalling $5,000 or more.”
And:
[quote]Who can become a financial agent of a third party?
an individual who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada
Who is not eligible to act as a financial agent?
a candidate or official agent of a candidate
a chief agent or registered agent of a registered party
an election officer or a member of the staff of a returning officer
an individual who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada[/quote]
“The third party must appoint an auditor if it incurs election advertising expenses totalling $5,000 or more. This may become necessary before or after registration.”
And:
[quote]Who can become an auditor of a third party?
a person who is a member in good standing of a corporation, an association or an institute of provincially incorporated professional accountants
a partnership of which every partner is a member in good standing of a corporation, an association or an institute of provincially incorporated professional accountants
provincially incorporated professional accounting designations include: Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA), Chartered Accountant (CA), Certified General Accountant (CGA) or Certified Management Accountant (CMA).
Who is not eligible to be an auditor?
the third party’s financial agent
a person who signed the third party’s application for registration
an election officer
a candidate or official agent of a candidate
the chief agent of a registered party or an eligible party
“Individuals who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada, and businesses or other organizations that operate in Canada, can make contributions to a third party for election advertising purposes.”
[quote]The third party is prohibited from using a contribution made for election advertising purposes if it does not know the name and address of the contributor, or if it is unable to determine to which contributor class the contributor belongs.
The third party cannot use a contribution made for election advertising purposes if the contribution is from:
a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada
a corporation or association that does not carry on business in Canada
a trade union that does not hold bargaining rights for employees in Canada
“Election advertising is the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated.”
[Personal note: I find this definition vague and would recommend you get clarity from a lawyer if you are unsure whether your activities qualify as election advertising]
the transmission to the public of an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, a commentary, or news
the distribution of a book, or the promotion of the sale of a book, for no less than its commercial value, if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there was to be an election
the transmission of a document directly by a person or a group to their members, employees or shareholders, as the case may be
the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on the Internet, of that individual’s personal political views
“The Canada Elections Act requires that a third party identify itself in any election advertising and indicate that it has authorized the advertising. This authorization has to be in or on the message. Failure to do so is an offence.
The following wording is suggested: “Authorized by the <name of the third party>.”
“The third party election advertising expenses limit for a 37-day general election period called between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 is:
$205,800.00 in total
$4,116.00 in total in a given electoral district”
Note though that if the election is called earlier, there is some math to do, because you will be able to spend more money:
“If an election period is longer than 37 days, the election advertising expenses limit at the national and electoral district level increases as follows:
the initial limit is divided by 37
the result is multiplied by (number of days in the election period–37)”
“For contributions over $200 made for election advertising purposes in the period beginning six months before the election was called and ending on election day, the contributor’s name, address and class, and the amount and date of the contribution, have to be reported.”
And:
[quote]For reporting purposes, the Canada Elections Act identifies the following classes of contributors:
individuals
businesses
commercial organizations
governments
trade unions
corporations without share capital other than trade unions
unincorporated organizations or associations other than trade unions[/quote]
There are three deadlines you need to know about and you can go to the section on reporting here, in general though they are (summed up in my own words):
when you think you’re going to spend more than $500 you need to register right away
if any of the info on your original registration changes then you need to submit a new form right away
within four months after election day you need to submit a final Third Party Election Advertising Report
Here’s all the contact information you need for Elections Canada and also below (because I am just so darn helpful) is another link to the PDF document you need to fill out if you’re going to register as a third party in the 2015 Canadian federal election:
