Monthly Archives: October 2019

Liberal candidate Sandra Pupatello may have violated the Canada Elections Act by posting a photo of her ballot.

Pupatello, running in Windsor West, posted a photo of her completed ballot on Twitter Saturday, saying "I did it! I voted for me!" and tagging the Liberal Party of Canada in Ontario Twitter account.

About five minutes later, Pupatello deleted the tweet, apologizing.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections wouldn't confirm if the matter was being investigated, but referred CBC to Section 163 of the Canada Elections Act, which states that a person's vote is secret.

Other provisions under the Canada Elections Act prohibit "photographs, videos or copies of marked ballots," as excerpted below:

Photograph, video or copy of marked ballot

281.8 (1) No person shall

(a) take a photograph or make a video recording of a ballot or special ballot that has been marked, at an election, by an elector;

(b) make a copy, in any manner, of any ballot or special ballot that has been marked, at an election, by an elector; or

(c) distribute or show, in any manner, to one or more persons, a photograph, video recording or copy of a ballot or special ballot that has been marked, at an election, by an elector.

Should there be an investigation, the Commissioner's office said a fine of up to $5,000 may be imposed, or imprisonment of up to six months or both.

"That being said, the Commissioner has other means of ensuring compliance with, and enforcement of, the Act including compliance agreements and administrative monetary penalties," said Myriam Croussette for the Commissioner's office in an email.

A spokesperson for Pupatello declined to comment further, referring instead to the second tweet acknowledging the photo should not have been posted.

NDP candidate Brian Masse didn't see the photo.

"I don't follow her Twitter account but that's obviously that's not something you would do," said Masse. "I focus on our campaign ... I don't focus on the opponents. Obviously that's not something you should do."

Masse "couldn't say" if there should be any repercussions for Pupatello's photo.

"The vote in Canada in most places is secret," said Elections Canada regional media advisor Rejean Grenier.

Grenier said the issue isn't good for a lot of reasons it's not fair to other voters, or to the process itself.

"When a candidate does it ... it doesn't even really mean anything. We didn't think she was going to vote for someone else," said Grenier.

According to Grenier, people can tell their friends or family who they voted for, but generally speaking the vote should be secret. He also said the rules are "pretty simple."

"You can't take photos in a polling station. You can't take pictures of electors, except from the back. You can take pictures from the doorway," said Grenier.

Pupatello has years of experience in politics, havingserved as an MPP from 1995 to 2011 as a member of the Ontario Liberal Party under Dalton McGuinty.

During her first term as an MPP, she was the opposition critic for community and social services, children's issues, youth issues and the management board of cabinet.

Re-elected in 2003, Pupatellowas appointed as the minister of community and social services. In 2006, she was appointed the minister of education, but was reassigned a short time later as minister of economic development and trade.

In 2008, Pupatello took the role of the minister of international trade and development.

Pupatello was the co-manager of Dwight Duncan's 1996 campaign for the Ontario Liberal Party leadership.

In November of 2012, Pupatello announced her candidacy for the Liberal Party of Ontario leadershiprole, but lost to Kathleen Wynne in January 2013.

Continue reading here:

Oops. Liberal Windsor West candidate posts photo of ballot on Twitter - CBC.ca

The video immediately went viral. Ellen DeGeneres explaining why she was sitting next to former President George W. Bush at the game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers last weekend was widely praised by people across the political spectrum. Well, almost all the way across the political spectrum. Far left activists were still upset because, well, thats where they live. Everyone else was happy to see someone stand up for getting along with people you disagree with politically. At least for the moment. Then the moment passed, and those on the left returned to doing what they always do ruining everything.

One thing to notice about the controversy surrounding the two political opposites getting along like adults at a public event was where the outrage was coming from in the first place. Progressive activists were beside themselves with anger that DeGeneres, someone who not only is a lesbian but is also on their team as far as politics goes, would sit next to one of historys greatest monsters and not attack him physically, apparently.

Ellens rebuke was a nice change from the usual apologies that flow when the liberal mob targets someone for not being pure enough, but the necessity of it is more telling than that. While there was a lot of rage directed at Ellen for laughing with the former Republican president, there was no rage at the former Republican President for laughing with Ellen.

Conservatives didnt care. Two people with differing political beliefs getting along is a sin on the left, but it is a non-event on the right. We simply dont have the purity tests leftists do to exist in our circle of friends and family.

We all know people, whether were related to them or choose to associate with them, who support Democrats. Its no big deal. It is grounds for excommunication on the left.

Still, the video was nice to see, if only to remind people that human decency was still possible. Thats when CNNs Chris Cillizza came along.

Cillizzas column had an innocuous enough title, What the friendship of Ellen DeGeneres and George W. Bush should teach us. OK, maybe not that innocuous. Adults should be mature enough to not care about anyones politics when it comes to friendship. But Cillizza is a man of the left, and CNNs audience is the left, and they need reminders of basic human decency every now and then, like after calling for a politicians death in front of their house in the middle of the night or while screaming at someone who dared be a conservative in a restaurant. But that wasnt what Cillizza did.

After recounting the event, Chris wrote, What DeGeneres is advocating there is sort of anti-Trumpism in its purest form. Because what this President represents, more than any issue stance or policy position, is the idea that people who disagree with you are to be mocked, to be villainized, to be bullied. If you disagree with Trump on, well, anything, you are his enemy. The only way to be in his good graces -- and therefore, in the good graces of those who support him -- is to agree with him on absolutely everything.

Cillizza suffers from a raging case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and he simply couldnt control himself.

Not only was it the exact opposite of everything DeGeneres was criticizing in her viral video, its everything the left does on a daily basis.

Its not the right that is shouting down speakers on college campuses. Its not the right demanding people be de-platformed for holding views we dont like. Its not the right calling for boycotts and people to be fired for daring to stray from progressive orthodoxy. It not only is the political left, its CNN in all these cases, with the exception of campus speeches. And all of it pre-dated Donald Trumps ride down the escalator in June of 2015.

What Cillizza either doesnt know or doesnt want his readers to know, is division is the coin of the realm of the left.

Democrats divide people based on their income, their skin color, their sexuality, their gender, their ethnicity, whatever you got. They work to convince people theyre victims, and you cant have a victim without there being a perp.

Listen to any 2020 Democrat speak and its all about how there is this nebulous group of others fighting hard to oppress everyone else, and their liberal policies are the only hope for overcoming that systemic oppression. Ask the citizens of Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, or anywhere else the left has had absolute generational control over the levers of power how the help the left is offering worked out for them.

Cillizza is no different than the Twitter trolls attacking DeGeneres for being friends with Bush, only he turned his focus to the current president.

Many liberals dont seem to realize how nasty and full of hatred they are because their worlds are pure. Cillizza lives in the CNN ecosystem, where hatred for Republicans is the key to more facetime on TV. Even their conservative commentators overflow with bile at the mention of the presidents name.

But the president doesnt take it lying down. The old Republican response to being punched in the face was to apologize for hurting the hand of the Democrat who punched them. Donald Trump doesnt play that game, he hits back (and if you look at the attacks from the president that cause Democrats to clutch their pearls, hes always punching back, never attacking people out of the blue). Liberals arent used to that.

If someone is used to walking all over a person, treating them like garbage for years, then suddenly that person stands up for themselves and refuses to take the abuse anymore, the abuser always feels like a shocked victim. Can you believe what they called me? said the abuser, is not uncommon.

Far-left progressives are the problem, people who think Ellen DeGeneres and George W. Bush being friends is somehow extraordinary are the problem, because its not extraordinary. Its very ordinary to be friends with someone who has wildly different political views from you, even on important issues. Well, ordinary everywhere except far-left places like CNN, where someone like an Ana Navarro is your frame of reference for what constitutes a conservative.

If you want to know what Ellen and Georges friendship should teach us, Chris, its not that Donald Trump is a meanie, its that youre a hypocrite. Its not that people from different ends of the political spectrum CAN get along, its that they DO get along all the time. That that fact is news or, in your words, really important to anyone is more of a reflection on you than it is on society.

Derek is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and author of the book,Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses.

Read more from the original source:

Liberals Ruin Everything - Townhall

The Crean Hill Gun Club is one of the only places inGreater Sudbury where you can legally shoot a handgun or a restricted rifle.

Club president Steve Hogan says a proposed Liberal ban on "military-style" firearms will do nothing to stop gun violence in major Canadian cities, andonly hurt sport shooters like him and his some 200 members.

"We feel very much as though we're being punished for somebody else's sins," he says.

"Because they know where we live, they know what guns we have because we're forced to register everything and it's easy for them to take them;whereas taking guns from the criminals who are shooting one another and innocent people is hard work."

Hogan worries the lack of specifics in the Liberal proposal could see even hunting rifles made illegal one day.

"It's written intentionally vague so it can mean whatever you want it to mean," he says.

Nickel Belt Liberal candidate and incumbent MPMarc Serre says the plan is to consult the RCMP on which weapons should be banned and then the government wouldbuy them from gun owners.

He says for him the focus is on protecting hunters, not those who want to own a gun designed for military use.

"That's not a hunting rifle. These are machines that have been fabricated, manufactured to kill people," Serre says.

The Liberals are also promising to give police and border guards more money to fight the flow of illegal guns from the U.S.

Serresays he made sure before the party moved forward with this proposal that it wouldn't affect hunters in northern Ontario.

When his uncle Benoit Serre was the local MP in the 1990s, he broke party ranks andvoted against his own Liberal government plans for a long gun registry.

That same registry was a thorny issue for NDP MPsin the northeast in 2011, who initially voted with the Conservative government to scrap it, but most were eventually whipped into voting to keep it.

This time, the NDP are making a similar promise asthe Liberals to "keep assault weapons and illegal handguns off our streets and to tackle gun smuggling and organized crime." However, the partydoes notlay out how that would be done.

The Green Party says it too would buy back assault weapons from Canadians who currently own them legally, but it would also look to buy back handguns as well.

The Conservatives are making a similar pledge, also saying they'll toughen the penalties for those convicted of gun crimes.

Sudbury psychologist Lorraine Champagne would like to hear the parties talk more about mental health services when it comes to gun crime.

She was one of several dozen women who fired a gun for the first time at a charity shooting event for women at the Crean Hill Gun Club earlier this month.

Champagne says there really is no "mental health system" in Canada, with most counselling services not funded by the provincial government.

"Rather than just looking at the gun, we need to look at the mental health services people need."

The rest is here:

Northern Ontario gun owners fear 'intentionally vague' Liberal plan will lead to wider gun ban - CBC.ca

OTTAWA Andrew Cash thinks the Liberal promise to bring in electoral reform might have cost him his job.

He also believes the fact that the Liberals abandoned the pledge, which he said is one of many reasons why progressive-minded voters are disenchanted with Justin Trudeau and his government, could help him get that job back in the Oct. 21 election.

The New Democrat candidate in the downtown Toronto riding of Davenport lost by a narrow margin 1,441 votes, or about three percentage points to Liberal Julie Dzerowicz in the 2015 election, one of many upsets in the red wave that swept across the country.

Cash, who is now running there again, says electoral reform is one of the issues that comes up, unprompted, when he knocks on doors.

It comes up for people for whom that was a really important thing in the last election and it also comes up with people who are just sort of really frustrated with the system the way it is right now, Cash said in an interview days before the campaign began.

Trudeau promised, repeatedly and unequivocally, that he would get rid of the current first-past-the-post voting system in time for 2019. The Liberal platform said the 2015 election would be the last for the traditional way of electing MPs: thered be reform legislation before Parliament within 18 months.

It comes up for people for whom that was a really important thing in the last election and it also comes up with people who are just sort of really frustrated with the system the way it is right now

That bold declaration made things a little awkward for the Liberals when they decided, after a series of stumbles, to walk away.

The New Democrats and Greens, who have long called for proportional representation, howled in protest.

The Conservatives, who were against changing anything without a referendum, made political hay of the flip-flop.

The main rationale Trudeau gave for breaking the promise was that apart from a minority of passionate proponents of electoral reform, Canadians were not, in his view, that insistent about changing the way they cast ballots in federal elections after all.

Previous attempts in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia have failed, sometimes more than once. That lack of widespread interest was seen as one reason Trudeau could emerge from the controversy with his own electoral fortunes intact.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh brought renewed attention to the issue this week when he detailed what it would take for his party to support a minority government in Parliament, saying they would push the next government to change the system.

Still, electoral reform is not listed as one of Singhs six specific conditions for support.

The Liberals came to power on high expectations.

They need to convince voters passionate about the progressive causes they championed in 2015 to stick with them, even though they might be disappointed over the choices they have made over the past four years, such as purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project or how they handled the SNC-Lavalin affair.

David Coletto, chief executive of Ottawa-based polling firm Abacus Data, says he does not think electoral reform, as an issue, is a motivating factor for enough people to have an impact on the outcome. Electoral reform as a prominent broken promise, however, could be different.

It was part of a wider set of decisions the government made that has disappointed many of those who voted for them, says Coletto.

Fair Vote Canada, a registered third-party group promoting electoral reform, is targeting 21 ridings, are urging people to vote for local candidates who support some kind of proportional representation.

That includes Davenport, where Fair Vote Canada asks people to vote for Cash or the Green party candidate, Hannah Conover-Arthurs, over Dzerowicz, the Liberal incumbent.

Proportional representation aims to have the numbers of MPs in the House of Commons align more closely with the popular vote.

The current system of first-past-the-post means the candidate with a plurality of votes in each of 338 ridings wins the seat. Its simple and familiar. It meant the Liberals 39.5 per cent of the popular vote in 2015 gave them a majority government with 184 seats.

Trudeau himself had favoured a ranked-ballot system, where voters can transfer their votes to second and third and fourth choices in split races if their preferred candidates come last in successive rounds of counting.

Fair Vote Canada endorses the NDP, which has pledged to bring in mixed-member proportional representation within its first mandate, and the Green party, which has long fought for proportional representation and is also promising to do away with first-past-the-post in time for the 2023 vote.

The Conservatives are not calling for electoral reform. This time around, the Liberal platform is silent on the issue.

The Quebec government has proposed legislation to hold a referendum on changes there in 2022.

Real Lavergne, the president of Fair Vote Canada, said he believes Trudeau aimed his electoral reform promise at Canadians who would otherwise have voted for the NDP or the Greens, causing many to vote strategically for the Liberals.

It was like a deal: vote for me this time and you wont have to do it ever again, said Lavergne.

Melanee Thomas, a political-science professor at the University of Calgary, said the desire for change after nearly a decade of former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper likely played a bigger role in how people voted than an issue like electoral reform did.

Still, Thomas said the promise of electoral reform might have convinced more people to vote strategically in 2015 than usually would.

Thomas, who studies voter behaviour, said she expects strategic voting to return to playing a minimal role in why people vote.

I think all this has done is dropped enthusiasm for the potential for strategic voting, she said.

Leadnow, another registered third-party group in favour of electoral reform, devoted its efforts to a strategic-voting campaign in the 2015 election.

This time around, however, Leadnow is focusing on climate change.

Fair Vote Canada is also endorsing a handful of other candidates who have expressed support for electoral reform.

That includes Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who apologized to his constituents when the Trudeau government halted its efforts on electoral reform.

Erskine-Smith is seeking re-election in Beaches-East York, another Toronto seat the Liberals took from the NDP in 2015.

The issue does come up at the doorstep and he shares voters frustration when it does, he said, but tries to focus on the good things he thinks the Liberals have done.

I think we have to be wary of the promises that we make if we cant keep them, and how we walk away from promises, because we dont want to create cynicism, he says.

Read more:

The Liberals broke their promise on electoral reform. Will it hurt them in 2019? - National Post

MARKHAM, Ont. It was perhaps no coincidence that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was campaigning Wednesday in the riding once held by former trusted, high-profile Cabinet minister Jane Philpott.

Philpott, the former Liberal Treasury Board president, was turfed by Trudeau from the party after she publicly said she had no confidence in the prime ministers handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Now Philpott, well-known and well-liked in the Markham-Stouffville riding, is standing as an independent and is more than holding her own.

Philpott believes that there is a grassroots, anti-establishment phenomenon of sorts taking place in this riding a largely white, middle-class suburb north of Toronto that is simply not being reflected in mainstream polling data.

In fact, she and her team were so sure about this that they recently commissioned Oracle Poll Research to conduct a survey of 301 voters in the riding, which showed Philpott in the lead, with 38 per cent of decided voters saying that would chose her as their MP. The poll showed Liberal candidate Helena Jaczek coming in at 35 per cent, and Conservative candidate Theodore Antony at 10 per cent.

We have been tracking that I have a three to one advantage amongst decided voters. Thats not what most polls are saying, but thats what were hearing after talking to thousands of people, Philpott said, in an interview with the Post, this past Saturday, just minutes before hitting the road for yet another day of door knocking.

Days after releasing the poll results on her blog, Trudeau descended upon Markham, campaigning with Liberal candidates in the area, including Jaczek.

Since the writ drop, Philpott says that her campaign has knocked on 26,868 doors in a riding with a population of 126,000 people. They have less than two weeks, and roughly 16,000 doors left to go. But with over 350 volunteers, and more than enough cash till election day, theres a palpable feeling of optimism in her campaign office, more than one would expect of a candidate running as an independent in a Westminster system, where party brand reigns supreme and party loyalty runs deep.

It was this aspect of caucus politics party discipline that caused Philpott to clash so publicly with her leader, citing an incompatibility between the conventions of Cabinet solidarity and her own loss of confidence in Trudeaus handling of the SNC affair. And it was similarly this rejection of party discipline, that ultimately pushed Philpott to run as an independent, free from the structural rigidity of party messaging.

There seemed to be unwritten messages and rules about how much youre allowed to disagree with the party. If people disagreed in certain formats, there would be negative consequences, Philpott said. I feel sad about the circumstances that led to me being kicked out. I dont regret what I did by standing up and saying SNC-Lavalin was wrong but I shouldnt have been kicked out of the party for saying that.

I dont regret what I did by standing up and saying SNC-Lavalin was wrong

While door knocking, Philpott, the incumbent, is repeatedly praised for breaking with tradition and taking a stand on SNC. Youre a champion. You go get them, said one voter, excitedly embracing the former health minister.

It helps that Philpott spent a good chunk of her career as a family doctor in Stouffville.

I just want to tell you that Im so proud of what you did, and youre definitely getting my vote, said another voter on the same street, a former patient of Philpotts. Can I put a sign on your lawn? Philpott asks tentatively, not wanting to take up too much time, mindful that it was still relatively early on a weekend morning.

At another house, there was some confusion and concern about what an independent MP will be able to accomplish in Ottawa. This sentiment was expressed often, by numerous constituents, but Philpott had her talking points ready to go: independent MPs will be able to speak solely on behalf of their constituents, unlike partisan MPs who have to follow party messaging; politics can be different and improved by more independents who can freely represent their constituents, and freely collaborate with other MPs.

At least once a week, one of her volunteers Naftali Nakhshon drives across the Greater Toronto Area all the way from the western Toronto suburb of Etobicoke to the north-eastern district of Stouffville to canvass.

Nakhshon, a middle-aged Israeli-Canadian who has a certain candour to his demeanour, isnt even able to vote for Philpott, because he doesnt reside in her riding.

In fact, he admits he will probably end up voting Conservative. I always vote Conservative, but its because we dont have a strong independent like her running in my riding. Shes brave, Nakhshon told the National Post, shortly after canvassing Philpotts riding.

It was this very intrigue with an alternative form of federal government representation beyond the main political parties that got Nakhshon interested in Philpotts campaign.

To a large extent, with her commitment to advancing reconciliation, advocating for a national pharmacare plan, and the condemnation of Bill 21 Quebecs ban on public service employees wearing religious symbols Philpotts platform has the sound and feel of the Liberal Party. She admits that she was courted by both the NDP and the Green Party in the aftermath of being ousted from the Liberal caucus, but did not feel it was fair to herself or to her constituents to wrap myself in another whole party colour and say thats who I am now.

That honesty, says Nakhshon, is exactly what is appealing to him about Philpott. I dont think most people in this campaign office will agree with where I stand politically, but look, were all sitting here together.

Philpott characterizes her actions this past spring as one that placed loyalty to the country above the party. I was trying to uphold the rule of law and say politicians should not interfere with criminal cases. That should not be a reason to be kicked out of your party, especially by somebody I served with complete loyalty for three and a half years. But I cant dwell on that, I have to move on.

Philpotts campaign manager, Jennifer Hess, who was also involved in her 2015 campaign, admits that there are challenges to not having the backing of a big party in running a campaign. But the campaign has surpassed expectations on two key aspects the number of volunteers, and donations. We have more money than we can legally spend. We were in the incredibly fortunate position to stop accepting donations.

The conventional rhetoric about Markham-Stouffville is that Philpotts candidacy will end up splitting the Liberal vote, but both Philpott and Hess believe that that logic might not hold up on Oct. 21.

There are a few very loyal partisan constituents who will vote for the party they have always voted for. But Ive had people tell me that they feel politically homeless, that they cant find a party they feel they belong in, said Philpott. There are definitely people who are interested in voting for an independent because they feel like it is an option for them and will demonstrate something outside of partisanship.

Pollster Philippe J. Fournier of 338canada.com, whose own data suggests that Philpott will end up in third place with just 18 per cent of the overall vote, rejects the idea that Philpotts anecdotal account of support shes getting at doors could indicate her chances of winning.

With all due respect to Ms. Philpott (and I mean this sincerely), lawn signs and what people tell candidates when door knocking are the most unscientific indicators. They absolutely dont mean a thing. Its spin at best, Fournier told the Post over email, prior to Philpotts team conducting the Oracle-commissioned survey. Philpotts gold and black lawn signs are evident throughout Markham-Stouffville there are either as many signs as both the Conservative and Liberal candidates respectively, or even more.

Any candidate of any party would never say on the record that things arent going well on the field. They just never would, Fournier added.

But at least on the surface, and perhaps unlike her former boss, Philpotts own determination to win does not come from the desire to further her personal political ambitions. I dont think of myself as having a political career. I think of using politics as a tool to serve Canadians. I really would not be doing this if I thought I couldnt accomplish something for good.

Read the rest here:

Kicked out of the party, but not out of politics: Ex-Liberal Jane Philpott holding her own as independent - National Post

The Constitution assures no province can have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate.

Singh didn't say how he would address this concern in provincial talks, but said doesn't believe the answer to those concerns is maintaining the Senate.

Justin Trudeau's Liberal government introduced reforms with an aim to make the Senate more independent by allowing Canadians to apply for Senate openings and having an advisory group recommend nominees for the prime minister to select for seats in the upper chamber.

But some critics say it remains a partisan body.

Conservative Senate whip Don Plett told The Canadian Press in June that he thought it was a "ridiculous sham" to suggest the Senate under Trudeau's reforms is any different.

He accused officially Independent senators of being partisan Liberals, in spirit if not in name, because all were appointed by Trudeau, who also had a say in who sat on the advisory body that made recommendations.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has said he would resume making partisan appointments, although he has also supported the idea of elected senators in the past.

Singh linked the push to abolish the Senate with his party's proposal to reform Canada's voting system.

The NDP proposes immediately adopting a system of mixed-member proportional representation: a combination of legislators elected to represent particular geographic areas and others named from party lists so the standings in the Commons more closely matched the national popular vote. After two election cycles, the NDP promise a referendum on whether to keep the system.

"I believe people should have real representation, somebody who's going to fight for them. I also believe, to give people true representation, making sure that everyone's vote counts, and that's why I believe in proportional representation," Singh said.

"That's what I want to make happen."

Singh spent the day campaigning in Canada's biggest city, targeting two ridings the NDP narrowly lost to the Liberals in 2015: Layton's old riding of Toronto-Danforth and Parkdale-High-Park, the riding formerly held by Peggy Nash.

During a rally Tuesday afternoon on a street corner in Parkdale-High-Park, Singh once again pushed back against the idea of strategic voting, which Trudeau has been promoting in his appeals to "progressive" voters worried about a Conservative win.

Rather than voting to prevent something out of fear, Singh is encouraging Canadians to instead "vote for something," not against something else.

"You can vote out of hope, you can vote because you believe in a brighter future, you can vote New Democrat."

Read more:

Canada's Senate only a 'mouthpiece' for Liberal and Conservative parties, Singh says - TheSpec.com

OTTAWAIn the months leading up to the federal election, many political observers in Ottawa thought immigration issues would figure prominently in the campaign.

The Conservative opposition had spent months between 2017 and 2019 hammering the Liberal government on their handling of a spike in asylum claimants crossing into Canada, mostly at a single point on Quebecs southern border.

The Liberals, for their part, continued to trumpet Canadas openness to immigrants and refugees something Justin Trudeau had highlighted since the 2015 campaign with his partys commitment to take in more refugees fleeing war-torn Syria.

But over the course of the campaign, including the two official leaders debates last week, immigration has taken a back seat to issues like climate change, or how the various leaders would save you a buck if they formed government.

That might be because, in spite of the rhetoric and the politicking, Canadas mainstream political parties have a broad consensus on immigration being key to the countrys continued economic and social well-being.

But there are important differences in both tone and policy between the Liberals and the Conservatives the two parties which have the most realistic shot of governing. How would the first six months of a Conservative or a Liberal government differ?

The Star looks ahead at what this election could mean for Canadas immigration policies and for people hoping to make it to Canadian shores.

Liberal majority

Naturally, a Liberal majority would represent the least change from Canadas current immigration levels. The Liberals have been steadily increasing planned immigration levels since taking office in 2015, and would continue to do so if they were re-elected.

According to the federal governments immigration levels plan, Canada would aim to grow the number of immigrants from 330,800 in 2019, to 350,000 in 2021. Most of these, around 60 per cent, come through Canadas economic stream for immigration skilled workers to fill needs in the economy.

The Liberal party says it will enact modest and responsible increases in immigration, with a focus on attracting highly skilled workers.

A Liberal government would introduce a municipal nominee program that would allow local communities to directly sponsor permanent immigrants and it would make permanent a separate program to encourage immigration to Atlantic Canada. A minimum of 5,000 spaces would be earmarked for each program. The Liberals say they would also waive citizenship fees for permanent residents.

The number of refugees admitted into Canada fluctuates year-to-year, although irregular migration at the Canada-U.S. border where asylum claimants have been crossing outside recognized ports of entry in hopes of securing refugee status decreased in 2019 compared to previous years.

Conservative majority

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer largely agrees with the Liberal governments proposed immigration targets of 350,000 newcomers in 2021. Scheer told the CBC this month that immigration levels should not be politicized.

This should be a number that Statistics Canada and experts in various fields say we need this many people to come to fill the gaps in the workplace, or to ensure we have a growing population, combined with a humanitarian component for family reunification and refugees, Scheer said.

So dont expect a new Conservative government to drastically change course on the top-level numbers. The Conservatives main point of difference with the Liberals is the situation at Roxham Road in Quebec.

Since 2017, more than 50,000 people have crossed the Canada-U.S. border outside of a border services checkpoint. Once they reach Canadian soil, Canada has an obligation under both domestic and international law to give their asylum claims a fair hearing.

Get The Lead newsletter

Start getting your whip-smart guide to Canada's 2019 federal election in your inbox.

While the numbers have decreased year-over-year since 2017, when U.S. President Donald Trumps administration started threatening specific groups with deportation, the Conservatives have continued to heap criticism on the Liberals handling of the file.

Last week, Scheer announced that a Conservative government would attempt to renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement with the Trump administration. The bilateral agreement requires those seeking asylum to make their claim in either the U.S. or Canada, whichever they arrive in first. But convincing the hardline Trump administration to take in more refugees would be an uphill battle particularly as Trump seeks re-election.

Scheer said there are other options if the U.S. is unwilling to renegotiate the agreement although declined in his news conference to say what those options were. A Scheer government would also hire an additional 250 officers for the Canada Border Services Agency, a significant increase in the agencys inland enforcement workforce.

The Conservatives would also prioritize funding to immigration services like language training and credential recognition, in addition to emphasizing services to vulnerable newcomers.

Minority government

All the parties recognize the importance of immigration to Canadas economy at a time when the countrys workforce is aging and concerns mount about labour shortages. This could open the door to more economic immigration as well as increased efforts to recognize the credentials of professionals trained abroad. And three parties want changes to Canadas Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States although in very different ways.

The Green party wants it terminated, the NDP says suspend it and the Conservatives want changes, to prevent asylum seekers from the U.S. from making claims when they arrive at unofficial border crossings. The Liberals said only that it would work with the U.S. to modernize the agreement.

But a Liberal minority government could come under opposition pressure for more drastic changes.

The NDP say that Canada has an important role to play taking in refugees. New Democrats and Green party members want to speed family reunification. Both want to crack down on unscrupulous immigration consultants.

The Green party wants the accreditation of foreign professionals expedited to speed their entry into the workforce. It would eliminate the temporary foreign workers program by increasing immigration levels and working with employers to assist with permanent residency. And it says that Canada must be ready to take in environmental refugees, those who have been displaced by the impacts of climate change.

The Choice is a Toronto Star series where we take the issues that matter in this election and tell you what your vote will mean.

See original here:

On immigration, Liberals and Conservatives agree on targets but not on how to get there - Toronto Star

Almost two years ago, Seattle-based writer Ijeoma Oluo published her book So You Want to Talk About Race.

She had finished the work before Donald Trump became president. She doubts it would have become the best-seller it is if he hadnt.

Election day happened, and all of the sudden white people were messaging me going What went wrooong? We have a proooblem!

Oluo has toured the country for her book and other projects. She knew taking on the issue of race the way she had would make her a target.

She returned from a recent trip to text messages alerting her that an anonymous harasser had swatted her house, sending police on a false emergency call. She was on a plane and couldnt call her son, who was home asleep.

If youre a privileged white person like me, listening to Oluos message can be a challenge. She asks, pleads and sometimes demands that white people take responsibility for systematic racism. Most of us would probably say we deplore that system and want it to go away, but what are we willing to do about it?

White Seattle has gotten way too many free passes to call themselves liberal," Oluo said at Town Hall Seattle on October 2.

"When we look at the bills we pass; the way we fund our education; the way in which we look at policing; the way in which we treat poor and homeless people; the way in which we treat addicted people.

"We are NOT a liberal city. And part of why I wrote was because I was realizingI grew up herethat this wasnt my community. They were never going to have my back. People would come out harder for recycling than they would come out for Black Lives Matter.

Ijeoma Oluo spoke with her friend and former colleague, writer and film maker Charles Mudede, at Town Hall Seattle on October 2. KUOWs Sonya Harris recorded the event.

Please note: This recording contains unedited language of an adult nature.

See the original post:

Ijeoma Oluo on Seattle: 'We are NOT a liberal city' - KUOW News and Information

This column is about the Liberal party. Im afraid it will contain more questions than answers. At the least, the questions will be better than the answers.

And so vehemently. This is based mainly on my mail. Nothing evokes sputtering rage indicating loss of control, leading probably to self-disgust like anything I write about Liberals that could be read positively. I can only compare it to the bilious American responses when I sometimes appeared on shows like Bill OReillys. (Ive never been a Liberal, btw, Id call myself an independent left socialist and doubt Ive ever written anything suggesting otherwise.)

Is it that Liberals seem to have no raison dtre and if they did it was long ago? Is it that they seemed born to fail, back in 1861, and for their first 40 years, aside from one spurt in office, did fail. Later, the NDP/CCF shouldve brushed them aside. Yet theyre still here exercising power!

That bottomless fury baffles me. Sometimes I wonder if its simply that Liberals dont seem to take anything too seriously, including their principles, to whatever extent they exist, and usually look like theyre having a good time anyway. By journalistic consensus they host the best parties, in the other sense of party. The Liberal party may make more sense than the Liberal Party.

Its spectacular how often theyve been prematurely interred. In 1958, John Diefenbakers Progressive Conservatives decimated them, yet they returned for the Pierre Trudeau and then Jean Chretien years. In 2011, a mere eight years ago, pundits and experts proclaimed a new right-wing era for Canada, with the Liberals obsolete. For decades, theyve had zero mainstream media support, aside from the Star.

What preserves them? Perhaps an instinct for the political zeitgeist. In the 1800s, that meant electoral reform, which they embraced in the form of extending the ballot and making it secret. They also adopted another 1800s loss leader, the nation-state, which in Canada meant reconciling French and English so the Liberal, Laurier, became our first francophone PM. That project wasnt completed till 1982, with constitutional patriation under Pierre Trudeau, but weve always been a bit slow. Trudeau saw himself as Laurier revisited.

The 1900s were largely about extending the welfare state via activist governments (the New Deal, the Russian Revolution). Liberal leader Mackenzie King, the Platonic model of a pol without principles, sensed that drift while working for John Rockefeller in Colorado, helping him strike-break. (He proved his worth by inventing the company union.) So he introduced family allowances and old age pensions; later Liberals added medicare. The NDP think Liberals stole those ideas from them but really they swiped them from the 20th century.

Multiculturalism began under Pierre Trudeau as a gimmick to undermine Quebec separatism. It acquired legs of its own with Justin Trudeau, becoming diversity is our strength. Threaded in with globalization and trade deals, it may represent the spirit of the 2000s. Even Justins contradictions and apologies catch the mood of the age: self-criticism, personalization, confessionalism. Maybe it helps to be unanchored in serious principles: it lets you sniff out the temper of the times and accommodate it. Is that vrai liberalism?

This time they really shouldve been done. The Wilson-Raybould affair ought to have sufficed. When it didnt quite, along came the blackface. If the Tories had cashed in, or still do, it will be richly ironic that Liberals reneged on their 2015 promise of electoral reform: to never again hold an election where a minority of votes leads to virtually total power.

Get The Lead newsletter

Start getting your whip-smart guide to Canada's 2019 federal election in your inbox.

They couldve passed a mixed voting system (representatives plus PR) with multi-party (minus Conservative) support. Or their preference, a ranked ballot, if theyd had the guts to ram it through, as Stephen Harper surely would have.

Instead they chickened out, supposing theyd rule forever. But if they now win a minority, what deal can they make with other parties (minus the Tories) to retain power? Nothing on climate, theyre too far apart. But they could agree on electoral reform, which would be unspeakably ironic. Theyd keep power, and fulfil their promise too. These damn Liberals cant lose for winning.

See the original post here:

I dont get the intense hatred for the Liberals - Toronto Star