Tag: elections canada

Liberals rip down Conservative signs with a blessing from Elections Canada

This campaign has seen a lot of things, from MPs using office budgets to advertise during the writ to past blogs of present candidates coming back to haunt parties that have not properly conducted the vetting process. But this story, as reported by the Charlottetown Guardian is perhaps the one to top.

Conservative candidate Tom DeBlois posted signs throughout his riding advising constituents to “say no” to Dion’s carbon tax. These signs weren’t the standard blue with the standard Conservative logo but they were authorized by the official agent for Tom DeBlois.

Liberals, infuriated by opposition to their leader’s carbon tax, or perhaps just simply frustrated the plan isn’t going over as well as Al Gore’s private jet on the way to another Inconvenient presentation, drove throughout the riding and tore down the signs.

If this sounds like the standard campaign dirty tricks, read on. There’s an interesting twist. Turns out that Elections Canada actually authorized the take-down of the signs. Even if the signs were illegal, why did Elections Canada outsource it’s muscle to the Liberal Party? With pre-election suggestions by the Conservatives of Elections Canada working hand-in-glove with the Liberal Party, one would presume Elections Canada would be more careful and do better to try and dispel this allegation. The problem for the Liberals, and for Elections Canada in particular, the signs are completely legal and the subjective arbiter of elections fails to secure the democratic process from abuse once again and in this particular case they enabled it.

Elections Canada has admitted it was wrong to have the signs removed. The executive director of the Liberal Party has apologized.

While we’re on the topic of signs, let’s bring up some suspicious advertising that Elections Canada should take a look into. Of course, as Conservatives we don’t expect them to give a green light to our (or rather their) enforcement division.


Stapled to municipal sign


Stapled to utility pole


(from Guelph) Authorized by an official agent? Who knows.

Consider the stark difference in how Elections Canada enforces its rules.

1) In this case here, Liberals complain about legal signs, Elections Canada authorizes the Liberals to take them down.

2) Liberal MP Anthony Rota buys an identifying himself as an MP and the ad runs during the writ period unauthorized by his official agent. Conservatives complain but Elections Canada declares the ad legal.

3) Liberals provide advertising for a corporation on their campaign plane. We still haven’t heard from Elections Canada if this was done for free or whether other considerations were involved.

4) Finally, an NDP supporter puts an NDP sign in their rented apartment window, the landlord threatens eviction and Elections Canada washes their hands of the matter.

Elections Canada takes up arms, risks losing the war for us all

I admit, I have an abnormal obsession with politics, and as I’ve reassured some of my concerned friends during these past weeks: this is the call to battle for political geeks and if I’m my Blackberry becomes even more of an extension of my thumbs, do not worry, I will soon emerge to my “normal” state of following politics for only a few hours a day rather than full-time.

What is at the root of my attraction to politics? It’s a love of liberty, of this country and a love of the democratic system which undergirds it. The wisdom of the people and power and rights conferred to them — not by a constitution, Charter or any other political derivation, but from their very birthright as free persons — is at the core of the concept which defines our understanding of governance.

Election is war. In fact, battling factions called parties wage campaigns carefully considered from their war-rooms complete with psy-ops and black-ops, while pollsters provide reconnaissance for planners in the map room who send their lieutenants on tour. Foot soldiers are marshalled to the front lines by local commanders to knock on doors, make calls and at times good coffee. Communications officials are on the horn spinning their stories, boosting morale and deploying propaganda over enemy territory.

Some say that all is fair in love and war but in this war, there are rules. In a war for democracy — certainly a cause worth fighting for — all soldiers should fight fair lest something greater than their campaign is lost.

Elections Canada is the arbiter of the rules of electoral war. The agency, which could have been set up in The Hague, surveys the battlefield, tends to the wounded and at times runs its own carefully calculated raids. Elections Canada keeps civilians out of harm’s way and unlawful third party combatants at bay.

I have spent some time during this campaign pointing out various missteps and technical infractions of unfriendly parties in order to do my part to ensure that the battles fought during this campaign are fair and that the rules of combat are equally enforced. However, what is to be done when those that enforce the rules are ignorant of them?

In a spirit of a temporary armistice to protect the process and its ends that we fight for — no matter our stripe — from the protectors of this process themselves, I must call into question the occurrences reported in this dispatch from the field,

Landlords can order tenants to remove signs supporting federal election candidates, Elections Canada said Tuesday, after an Edmonton woman told CBC News she was threatened with eviction if she didn’t remove her sign.

Marilyn Dumont said she received a letter from her landlord saying she would be evicted within 14 days if she didn’t remove the sign from her apartment window by Wednesday.

“What I have is a signed letter from the landlord saying that I need to take the sign down and that we’re not allowed to post signs inside or outside of the premises,” she said.

The sign was for Linda Duncan, who is running for the NDP in Edmonton-Strathcona.

In Dumont’s lease, there is a prohibition against placing advertisements in apartment windows.

“Yes I do rent a space. And yes I did sign a lease that says, you know, I couldn’t put signs up for advertising. But I don’t feel this is advertising. It’s an election and it seems to me my democratic right to be able to express my opinion,” she said.

CBC could not reach Dumont’s landlord for comment.

But a spokeswoman for Elections Canada said while the agency has guidelines for the placement of signs on public land, it has no rules and takes no position about signage on private property, because its an issue between a landlord and a tenant.

“It’s a legal thing and has nothing to do with Elections Canada. It’s up to the tenant and the landlord to come to an agreement and follow up,” said Marie-France Kenny of Elections Canada in Alberta.

However, Elections Canada’s own rules state:

322. (1) No landlord or person acting on their behalf may prohibit a tenant from displaying election advertising posters on the premises to which the lease relates and no condominium corporation or any of its agents may prohibit the owner of a condominium unit from displaying election advertising posters on the premises of his or her unit.

Elections Canada should enforce the rules of this election fairly, no matter the fighting party. For if the rights that our troops fight to protect are victims of the process, all of us have lost the war.

That carbonzero logo raises some questions

Here’s a picture of Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s plane:

Allow me to draw your attention to the “carbonzero” logo that is displayed on the fuselage.

What is carbonzero?

Carbonzero is a company that provides carbon offsets. They were commissioned by the Liberals to provide offsets for that party’s travel during the campaign so that the Liberal could say they are “carbon neutral” during the election.

Here’s an information sheet provided by Elections Canada to reflect their interpretation of the Elections Act when it comes to “The Purchase of Advertising Space at Political Events”.

I’d like to highlight sections 6, 9, 11, 13 which read:

6. Corporations and other groups or associations sometimes offer to purchase “visibility” or advertisement space at political conventions or fundraising events. They may also offer to provide certain goods or services to attendees of these events.

9. Accordingly, when a corporation purchases advertising space at a political event, the political entity that sells it must be able to establish that the amount paid by the corporation represents the commercial value for such advertising (that is, the lowest price someone who is in the business of providing advertising would charge for this service in the area where it was provided).

11. Similarly, if the advertising space to be purchased constitutes banner space at a political event, the commercial value would be the lowest rate charged for equivalent visibility of commercial advertising placement in public areas such as bus shelters, billboards, etc.

13. The political entity must also be able to demonstrate that attendees of the event represent a market for the purchaser of advertising space. If this is not the case, the transaction would constitute a contribution.

Why is this law in place? Suppose I was a political party and my candidate was giving a speech. Suppose company X wants to advertise at my event by putting up a banner. Company X figures this is worth $50,000 and hands me a bag of cash. Elections Canada would raise a red flag on this practice. Did company X really receive $50,000 worth of advertising. If not, are they circumventing the corporate donations limit?

Back to “Profess-air” (the nickname of Dion’s campaign plane) and this election. I would argue that this election campaign constitutes a political event and I’d suggest that one of three scenarios exists here.

a) Carbonzero paid the Liberal Party to put their logo on the Liberal campaign plane.

or

b) Because Carbonzero reflects positively on the campaign and makes the point that the Liberals are carbon-neutral, the Liberals put the logo on their plane for free.

or

c) The Liberal Party paid Carbonzero to put their logo on their campaign plane.

The question is: who receives value for the display of the Carbonzero logo on the Liberal campaign plane and how is this value determined?

If the display of the Carbonzero logo is valuable to the Liberals, did they pay fair market value for its display? This may go above and beyond what the Liberals paid for carbon credits. If they didn’t, it may be argued that the difference represents a corporate donation.

If the display of the Carbonzero logo is valuable to Carbonzero, did Carbonzero pay fair market value to the Liberals for advertising their company on the Liberal plane and if not, does this reflect a corporate donation?

In my opinion, it’s best for political parties to stay away from sponsorship opportunities during elections because it is very difficult to determine the value of the market (the electorate, the news media?) and it is tricky to measure which party to the sponsorship agreement benefits and to what degree. Of course, this is possible to determine in everyday real-world scenarios, but this is one that is governed by Elections Canada.