Got my mail-in ballot in the mail yesterday for Ontario election. Best rate to send it (from Arizona) in time for voting day was $81 US via FedEx. The cost of participating in democracy.
Perhaps investing in an on-line voting system would be a good one?
An acquaintance working at Elections Canada (not the same as Elections Ontario) told me that she sat in on sessions on on-line voting. To cut a half-hour monologue short, they have not been able to get to a hack-proof level of protection with which they are comfortable. As sharp as their computer nerds are, the hackers are demonically good-- the problem is not people wishing to warp the result, but those who just want to break it down.
Ontario once had a proxy-voter system, of which I took advantage about 15 years ago (IIRC) when stomping through Spain. My lawyer and political friends were concerned that it was easily corruptible and facilitated impersonation-- but my chats with elections officials turned up no examples of which they knew-- there were plenty of legends, but no concrete examples. I perhaps should have researched a bit to see if anyone had been charged in recent years, but was distracted by something or the other.
338 is sort of taking the fun of election predictions but the Ontario results have been interestingly odd over the last few days - pretty consistent popular vote numbers (roughly PC 45%, Liberal 28, and NDP 18) but widely varying seat counts with Liberals ranging from narrowly beating the NDP for opposition status (with 19 seats) to narrowly getting official party status (with 12). It seems to be turning to a large extent on their ability to take PC seats, with the NDP seat count remaining more stable. Neither of them remotely approaching the PCs but at least the latter seat count has come back to double digits.
I think it's safe to crown Doug Ford as the political maestro of this generation of Ontario politicians. Quite the elevation from his earlier association with his brother's trainwreck of a life and career(*).
(*) Granted, I am speaking as someone who followed the Rob Ford debacle entirely from overseas, and had never previously heard of Doug. So I'm guessing lotsa people in Ontario had a wider perception of Doug than I did.
I admit that my original assumption about Doug was that he would be Rob redux. Still not a fan but he has demonstrated political skills in a way that I think many of us did not expect.
I expressed my disapproval of the show's framing (both the title and the question) on social media and in emails to Cross Country Checkup and the CBC Ombudsman. The text of that editor's blog is the same text that was sent out as a response letter to everyone that emailed with a concern.
I'm in the camp of those who think it was actually good to have the Checkup episode and to co-host it with an American radio host, because I do think Americans need to hear from Canadians on this issue - but for the portion of the show I was able to listen to, I was not impressed with how the hosts engaged with callers' comments and concerns. Apparently after I had to tune out, they had Kevin O'Leary on as an invited guest, which is just ... a mind-blowing choice. If the point of Checkup as, as per that blog and letter, to explore "how [an issue] impacts regular people who don't often get a microphone" one might question the value of inviting celebrities to comment at all, but ... even if you're gonna do that, KO is quite the guy to choose.
I was happy that they played a clip early on from my premier talking about how we have to take Trump's threats of annexation seriously. I don't agree with Andrew Furey on many things but I think he has done a good job of speaking up on this.
On the whole, though, it was a poorly-thought-out and much too light-hearted take on what might be the most serious issue facing Canada in our time.
Reading the response it struck me that the concept of having some kind of conversation was not inherently a bad idea - but as you say the way it was framed (and apparently implemented too) seems to leave a lot to be desired.
I was happy that they played a clip early on from my premier talking about how we have to take Trump's threats of annexation seriously. I don't agree with Andrew Furey on many things but I think he has done a good job of speaking up on this.
That may be the first nice thing I've said about the man in any public forum in his 4.5 years in office. Four hours later he announces he's resigning.
Can't say I'm on board with this petition to revoke Musk's citizenship, since "He went to another country and helped a government that worked against Canadian interests so no more citizenship for him!", if applied as a general principle outside of declared wartime, could easily descend into a rampage of civic cleansing, with the general class of people we may call expat/NGO types particularly vulnerable(*).
That being said, if Mr. Musk should decide to enter Canada at any point in the foreseeable future, I would say he has earned himself a topmost place on CSIS' list of people to keep an eye on.
(*) See the overall ambience of the The Two Michaels case for how complicated the relevant subculture can get.
I declined to sign the anti-Musk petition, not because I have any time for the vile-mouthed vile-faced rapscallion, but because he did not violate the citizenship law and removing someone's Canadian citizenship is extremely grave, more serious than a prison term.
I see no need to treat him as a decent person and will cheerfully ignore him in a public place. If someone offers to introduce us (not that I move much in oligarchic circles), I will decline the offer. If he's advertised as a speaker, I will contact the sponsors to suggest that they revise their programme so as not to embarrass themselves or the audience.
Before 1977, taking up another citizenship, as he had done, would automatically revoke one's Canadian citizenship. While I understand why this change was made, I wonder if it's time to look at this again.
Before 1977, taking up another citizenship, as he had done, would automatically revoke one's Canadian citizenship. While I understand why this change was made, I wonder if it's time to look at this again.
I know this is a controversial opinion and can cut in a lotta different directions, politically speaking, but I'd be cool with a law saying those with multiple citizenship are ineligible to sit in Canadian legislatures. I don't think it's too much to ask that if you want to pass the laws of Canada, including those relating to international affairs, that your only declared loyalty be to Canada.
I think I'm okay with multiple citizenship generally, though I suspect the 1977 revision was a self-interested measure to attract immigrants, rather than a sincere embrace of cosmopolitanism.
Happy Election Day to Ontario shipmates. It would be nice if we did better than the dismal 2022 turnout, though the weather does not seem to be cooperating. I voted first thing this morning on the way to work.
As things stand there’s no legal basis to revoke Musk’s citizenship. I have some sympathy for the petitioners but it’s not gonna happen absent some change to the law that is probably not a good idea. Voting is another issue. The SCC has been very generous to nonresident citizens on this issue and I’m not even sure s. 33 is available to override this - the notwithstanding clause doesn’t apply to s. 3 voting rights though I don’t know offhand if this was the basis on which the court decided the issue.
On another topic, the SCC has just granted leave on the question whether the lieutenant-governor of NB has to be personally bilingual. The trial judge said yes, the NB Court of Appeal said no (in both official languages). We shall find out who was right…
... I'd be cool with a law saying those with multiple citizenship are ineligible to sit in Canadian legislatures. I don't think it's too much to ask that if you want to pass the laws of Canada, including those relating to international affairs, that your only declared loyalty be to Canada.
...
How can someone swear allegiance to the King of Canada while having citizenship elsewhere? Makes absolutely no sense!
I'd even go so far as to say if one votes in another jurisdiction, they lose their Canadian citizenship.
Citizenship is inextricably linked with voting rights, ALL Canadian citizens over the age of 18 have the right to vote and to be elected to and sit in Parliament or their provimcial legislature. The courts have upheld very few deviations from this plain text.
Mind you, one sight of the NDP should disavow Mr. Musk of any desire to be elected in Canada.
Well that was pretty meh. NDP holding its own, to its credit doing better than the polls predicted. Liberals now back into official party territory but failing to win a seat for its leader, which is a problem. Conservatives still taking about double the number of seats won by both other parties combined.
Turnout 45% or so consistent with my pessimism on that point.
Will be interesting to see what Liberals do about Crombie. She says she wants to stay on but I don’t think they’re going to be very effective without their leader in the Legislature. Her approach seems to have been to minimize the distance between her party and the Conservatives, which may have been where the voters’ heads were for this election but it is not exactly a recipe for victory.
I am in the singular position of having had the background to the 1977 citizenship law explained to me by one of the Act's authors. He said that a number of countries didn't release their citizens, even when they took up another citizenship, leaving them as double citizens. At least one (Bulgaria) had a death penalty for those taking up other citizenships, and regularly harassed remaining family members. Other countries (e.g. UK with its six categories) had complicated citizenship structures. And French citizens had to go through a constitutional court to get release, even when citizenship had been acquired incidentally (e.g., marriage).
So allowing double citizenships was just regularizing a messy reality. I was not certain that it was so simple. At the same time, ending the status of British subject was a result of that status having become meaningless over time. Some ministers apparently wanted to create a status of Commonwealth citizen, but it appeared that no other country was interested, so Canada would have been the only place.
Multiple allegiances do not work for many things, and the oath taken by parliamentarians should have an explicit clause renouncing other allegiances.
I liked his statement: “It’s not in my habit to agree with the Wall Street Journal, but Donald, they point out that even though you're a very smart guy, this is a very dumb thing to do.”
Love hearing Prime Minister Trudeau using "Donald" to address the U.S. President.
Don't you mean 'Governor Trudeau'?
I've just watched a BBC2 Newsnight interview with someone from the Canadian Foreign Office/diplomatic service.
Apologies, I haven't got the right title.
She certainly wasn't taking Trump's crass comments as a joke. It's gone beyond that stage now. She sees it as an existential threat.
There seems to be mixed messages about the tariffs. Some pundits are predicting a row-back on them very soon.
Either way - and please forgive my ignorance of Canadian politics and I don't want to put my clumsy feet in by pontificating about matters I know little about ... but all of I sudden I feel that I ought to know more about Canada, that I should take more of an interest in its history, culture and politics.
That in some small way I ought to extend some kind of empathy, sympathy, positive vibes - anything - and somehow - I don’t know how - stand with you against the bullies in the White House.
I can't do anything and if this post is misplaced then I apologise but in my gut I want to say, 'I'm with you Canada. Hold on. Hold out.'
Either way - and please forgive my ignorance of Canadian politics and I don't want to put my clumsy feet in by pontificating about matters I know little about ... but all of I sudden I feel that I ought to know more about Canada, that I should take more of an interest in its history, culture and politics.
I've only read a handful of short books by both writers combined, but Pierre Berton and Peter C. Newman are, I think, considered the premiere popular historians of Canadian history. Though both, IMHO, tend to fall into somewhat self-deprecating/flattering stereotypes, especially in their stuff on the contemporary scene(*).
(*) Newman's The Canadian Revolution, for example, presents the misleadingly simplified thesis that confrontational attitudes played no role in Canadian politics and culture, but then argues that that all changed starting in the 1980s. However, the book pretty much consists of just a breezy overview of issues and personalities relevant to the late 80s/early 90s, shoehorned into Newman's diagnosis of some radical shift in the Canadian psyche.
Re the timespan on the tariffs - rationality says they shouldn’t last long but if any of this made any sense they would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
The retaliation might get a bit more interesting if Trudeau were to announce what US territory he was ready to annexe as new Canadian provinces. To keep it neat and tidy, how about anything north of the southernmost part of Canada?
The retaliation might get a bit more interesting if Trudeau were to announce what US territory he was ready to annexe as new Canadian provinces. To keep it neat and tidy, how about anything north of the southernmost part of Canada?
I want Vermont. Bernie Sanders can finally be with his own kind, the NDP. C'mon Bernie, you don't have to pretend anymore, we know what you really want.
Actually I've discussed this with NDP friends and Bernie would not be the most left-wing NDPer by a long shot.
I want Vermont. Bernie Sanders can finally be with his own kind, the NDP. C'mon Bernie, you don't have to pretend anymore, we know what you really want.
Actually I've discussed this with NDP friends and Bernie would not be the most left-wing NDPer by a long shot.
If there had been a telegraph service, we would possibly have kept Vermont as a province. After the War of Independence, Vermont farmers were having legal trouble with the patroons, large landowners on the New York side, claiming swaths of Vermont farmland.
Ethan Allen was in correspondence with the British about the re-admission of Vermont to the Empire. The sticking point was the election of a governor so that was referred to London for a decision. While the mails were shooting back and forth Washington determined that the risk was too great and so put muscle on the Governor of New York to quit New Yorkers' claims and Vermont agreed to pay them off.
Otherwise, we would possibly have Vermont as a province (with I would think an improved coat of arms) and perhaps Bernie Sanders as a senior figure could be the Lieutenant Governor.
There is a reason it's called 'Canada's Geneva Checklist'. Polite my foot. Let's get down to business.
Though I had heard of Canada's unfortunate reputation in the Great War prior to reading the above quote, I had never heard of that specific phrase, nor of the legal connection it's supposed to synechdochize. But in the past few weeks, it's become a minor meme.
What's amusing is that prior to this recent round of nationalistic self-assertion, most people hearing that phrase would have assumed it meant that Canada played a major part in writing of the Geneva Convention.
(As opposed to referencing German soldiers getting gunned down while charitably offering cigars during the Christmas Truce.)
Colby Cosh has a good piece in the Post, arguing, contra Ford, in favour of booing TSSB at hockey games.
Cosh is a hipster libertarian, so likely opposed to any tariffs on principle, but makes the valid point that boo-ing by average fans is harder for the Yanks to dismiss than elite political rhetoric is.
Comments
An acquaintance working at Elections Canada (not the same as Elections Ontario) told me that she sat in on sessions on on-line voting. To cut a half-hour monologue short, they have not been able to get to a hack-proof level of protection with which they are comfortable. As sharp as their computer nerds are, the hackers are demonically good-- the problem is not people wishing to warp the result, but those who just want to break it down.
Ontario once had a proxy-voter system, of which I took advantage about 15 years ago (IIRC) when stomping through Spain. My lawyer and political friends were concerned that it was easily corruptible and facilitated impersonation-- but my chats with elections officials turned up no examples of which they knew-- there were plenty of legends, but no concrete examples. I perhaps should have researched a bit to see if anyone had been charged in recent years, but was distracted by something or the other.
I think it's safe to crown Doug Ford as the political maestro of this generation of Ontario politicians. Quite the elevation from his earlier association with his brother's trainwreck of a life and career(*).
(*) Granted, I am speaking as someone who followed the Rob Ford debacle entirely from overseas, and had never previously heard of Doug. So I'm guessing lotsa people in Ontario had a wider perception of Doug than I did.
I'm in the camp of those who think it was actually good to have the Checkup episode and to co-host it with an American radio host, because I do think Americans need to hear from Canadians on this issue - but for the portion of the show I was able to listen to, I was not impressed with how the hosts engaged with callers' comments and concerns. Apparently after I had to tune out, they had Kevin O'Leary on as an invited guest, which is just ... a mind-blowing choice. If the point of Checkup as, as per that blog and letter, to explore "how [an issue] impacts regular people who don't often get a microphone" one might question the value of inviting celebrities to comment at all, but ... even if you're gonna do that, KO is quite the guy to choose.
I was happy that they played a clip early on from my premier talking about how we have to take Trump's threats of annexation seriously. I don't agree with Andrew Furey on many things but I think he has done a good job of speaking up on this.
On the whole, though, it was a poorly-thought-out and much too light-hearted take on what might be the most serious issue facing Canada in our time.
That may be the first nice thing I've said about the man in any public forum in his 4.5 years in office. Four hours later he announces he's resigning.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/andrew-furey-steps-down-as-premier-of-n-l-after-4-years-in-office-1.7467923
That being said, if Mr. Musk should decide to enter Canada at any point in the foreseeable future, I would say he has earned himself a topmost place on CSIS' list of people to keep an eye on.
(*) See the overall ambience of the The Two Michaels case for how complicated the relevant subculture can get.
I see no need to treat him as a decent person and will cheerfully ignore him in a public place. If someone offers to introduce us (not that I move much in oligarchic circles), I will decline the offer. If he's advertised as a speaker, I will contact the sponsors to suggest that they revise their programme so as not to embarrass themselves or the audience.
Before 1977, taking up another citizenship, as he had done, would automatically revoke one's Canadian citizenship. While I understand why this change was made, I wonder if it's time to look at this again.
I know this is a controversial opinion and can cut in a lotta different directions, politically speaking, but I'd be cool with a law saying those with multiple citizenship are ineligible to sit in Canadian legislatures. I don't think it's too much to ask that if you want to pass the laws of Canada, including those relating to international affairs, that your only declared loyalty be to Canada.
I think I'm okay with multiple citizenship generally, though I suspect the 1977 revision was a self-interested measure to attract immigrants, rather than a sincere embrace of cosmopolitanism.
As things stand there’s no legal basis to revoke Musk’s citizenship. I have some sympathy for the petitioners but it’s not gonna happen absent some change to the law that is probably not a good idea. Voting is another issue. The SCC has been very generous to nonresident citizens on this issue and I’m not even sure s. 33 is available to override this - the notwithstanding clause doesn’t apply to s. 3 voting rights though I don’t know offhand if this was the basis on which the court decided the issue.
On another topic, the SCC has just granted leave on the question whether the lieutenant-governor of NB has to be personally bilingual. The trial judge said yes, the NB Court of Appeal said no (in both official languages). We shall find out who was right…
I'd even go so far as to say if one votes in another jurisdiction, they lose their Canadian citizenship.
Mind you, one sight of the NDP should disavow Mr. Musk of any desire to be elected in Canada.
Turnout 45% or so consistent with my pessimism on that point.
Will be interesting to see what Liberals do about Crombie. She says she wants to stay on but I don’t think they’re going to be very effective without their leader in the Legislature. Her approach seems to have been to minimize the distance between her party and the Conservatives, which may have been where the voters’ heads were for this election but it is not exactly a recipe for victory.
So allowing double citizenships was just regularizing a messy reality. I was not certain that it was so simple. At the same time, ending the status of British subject was a result of that status having become meaningless over time. Some ministers apparently wanted to create a status of Commonwealth citizen, but it appeared that no other country was interested, so Canada would have been the only place.
Multiple allegiances do not work for many things, and the oath taken by parliamentarians should have an explicit clause renouncing other allegiances.
Me, too. But I'm ok with the results.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-canadian-politics-interview-1.7471276
The NDP certainly seems to be entrenching itself as the main opposition party.
Half of it is true.
Don't you mean 'Governor Trudeau'?
I've just watched a BBC2 Newsnight interview with someone from the Canadian Foreign Office/diplomatic service.
Apologies, I haven't got the right title.
She certainly wasn't taking Trump's crass comments as a joke. It's gone beyond that stage now. She sees it as an existential threat.
There seems to be mixed messages about the tariffs. Some pundits are predicting a row-back on them very soon.
Either way - and please forgive my ignorance of Canadian politics and I don't want to put my clumsy feet in by pontificating about matters I know little about ... but all of I sudden I feel that I ought to know more about Canada, that I should take more of an interest in its history, culture and politics.
That in some small way I ought to extend some kind of empathy, sympathy, positive vibes - anything - and somehow - I don’t know how - stand with you against the bullies in the White House.
I can't do anything and if this post is misplaced then I apologise but in my gut I want to say, 'I'm with you Canada. Hold on. Hold out.'
That's all I can say.
I've only read a handful of short books by both writers combined, but Pierre Berton and Peter C. Newman are, I think, considered the premiere popular historians of Canadian history. Though both, IMHO, tend to fall into somewhat self-deprecating/flattering stereotypes, especially in their stuff on the contemporary scene(*).
(*) Newman's The Canadian Revolution, for example, presents the misleadingly simplified thesis that confrontational attitudes played no role in Canadian politics and culture, but then argues that that all changed starting in the 1980s. However, the book pretty much consists of just a breezy overview of issues and personalities relevant to the late 80s/early 90s, shoehorned into Newman's diagnosis of some radical shift in the Canadian psyche.
Re the timespan on the tariffs - rationality says they shouldn’t last long but if any of this made any sense they would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
That could include Detroit.
Actually I've discussed this with NDP friends and Bernie would not be the most left-wing NDPer by a long shot.
Interview with Jeff Douglas
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6644891
If there had been a telegraph service, we would possibly have kept Vermont as a province. After the War of Independence, Vermont farmers were having legal trouble with the patroons, large landowners on the New York side, claiming swaths of Vermont farmland.
Ethan Allen was in correspondence with the British about the re-admission of Vermont to the Empire. The sticking point was the election of a governor so that was referred to London for a decision. While the mails were shooting back and forth Washington determined that the risk was too great and so put muscle on the Governor of New York to quit New Yorkers' claims and Vermont agreed to pay them off.
Otherwise, we would possibly have Vermont as a province (with I would think an improved coat of arms) and perhaps Bernie Sanders as a senior figure could be the Lieutenant Governor.
Though I had heard of Canada's unfortunate reputation in the Great War prior to reading the above quote, I had never heard of that specific phrase, nor of the legal connection it's supposed to synechdochize. But in the past few weeks, it's become a minor meme.
What's amusing is that prior to this recent round of nationalistic self-assertion, most people hearing that phrase would have assumed it meant that Canada played a major part in writing of the Geneva Convention.
(As opposed to referencing German soldiers getting gunned down while charitably offering cigars during the Christmas Truce.)
Cosh is a hipster libertarian, so likely opposed to any tariffs on principle, but makes the valid point that boo-ing by average fans is harder for the Yanks to dismiss than elite political rhetoric is.
By the dawn's early light?