CAPILANO STUDENTS' UNION will host a federal all-candidates forum on Thursday, Oct. 1, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 pm at Capilano University, CSU Library Lounge, 2055 Purcell Way, North Vancouver.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Federal Election All-candidates meetings
BROKE (Burnaby Residents Opposing Kinder Morgan Expansion) will host an all-candidates meeting for the North-Burnaby-Seymour riding on Tuesday, September 15, 7-9 p.m.at Capital Hill Community Hall, 361 South Howard Ave., Burnaby. 604- 872- 7326
CAPILANO STUDENTS' UNION will host a federal all-candidates forum on Thursday, Oct. 1, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 pm at Capilano University, CSU Library Lounge, 2055 Purcell Way, North Vancouver.
CAPILANO STUDENTS' UNION will host a federal all-candidates forum on Thursday, Oct. 1, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 pm at Capilano University, CSU Library Lounge, 2055 Purcell Way, North Vancouver.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments:
Oh John, please, please, please tell me I'll get a chance to see Claire Martin debate* Andrew Saxton!
Surely some excellent YouTube material from that!
(* "debate" meaning "wipe the floor with.")
That's great, but what about ACMs for the federal riding of North Vancouver?
Is the meeting at Cap U only for North Burnaby--Seymour?
Also looking forward to the North Vancouver all candidates meetings.
I am assuming that the Cap U. meeting is for North Vancouver riding?
There is an all candidates meeting in the Seymour area to be held at Mount Seymour United Church on Thursday, October 15th.
Mike "chicken" Little was a no show at the BROKE all candidates meeting. A sad command on the arrogance of the governing party!!!
The BROKE meeting sounds to me like it was being hosted by a group with an obvious agenda and no matter what you say, it would be twisted to suit the agenda of the moderator. I'd stay away too.
So Burnaby Residents Opposed to KinderMorgan Expansion (BROKE) are simultaneously running an Anybody but Conservative Campaign, and pretending to run a neutral all candidates meeting at the same time?
What the Hell is a neutral all candidates meeting? All groups who host all candidates meetings have an agenda. Protocol should be adhered to and candidates need to meet the public.
I guess we will see if Mike Chicken Little shows up at other all candidate meetings!
Hahaha, yeah try to provoke a seasoned politician by calling him a chicken.
Way to go Biff Tannen... you're a bully.
Those events are not "meeting the public". Almost every single person there was directly affiliated with one of the campaigns. They are there to attack and embarrass the other parties candidates. That is it. This particular event was organized by the BROKE group that is affiliated with the Green Party candidate Lynne Quarmby.
Calling Mike Little a "seasoned politician" is a bit of a stretch. He served for 9 years on DNV council and was mentored originally in 2005 by Preston Manning. 9 years on a "toe the Walton line" municipal council does not make him an expert on anything, except Tory power-seeking.
And how much political experience do the others have??? Well?
There were so many people at the meeting that the fire department ordered half of them to vacate the premises, most of whom stood outside the hall and listened. Either BROKE is a very large group (meaning that the conservatives support of Kinder Morgan is going to be a problem for Mr. Little)or or there were (like myself) a large number of members of the public not affiliated with BROKE in attendance. Mike Little's no show was inexcusable and nothing but an example of the arrogant attitude of the governing party. If anything it shows how much need there is for change in Ottawa!
It's a small room....
BROKE Burnaby residents favoring Russian drilling of the Arctic seabed.
Surely they aren't thinking China and the rest of Asia will just stop running cars and Maki g plastic stuff if Canadian oil is 'stranded'r do they?
Was there any explanation given for Mike Little's no-show?
Was there any explanation given for Mike Little's no-show?
He had to wash his hair? A sick aunt? A new episode of Coronation street?
Actually, according to the Vancouver Sun,
"I did miss the Burnaby Residents Opposing Kinder Morgan Expansion (BROKE) run all candidates meeting as I had a previously scheduled meeting,” Little said in a text message. “We have had requests for 12 all-candidates meetings so far. Our schedule does not permit me to attend everything and still meet voters door to door. However, we will be attending some of the debates.”
“All media requests must go through the campaign manager, and possibly through national, I don’t have much leeway on this, sorry,” he wrote."
Any bets whether Saxton will show up on the 24th?
It's pretty bad when candidates don't show up at the meetings.
INSIDE THE TYEE
What's up for debate
With 32 days left until election day, three federal leaders will be in Calgary this evening for the second debate on the economy, the closest we'll get to an inequality discussion.
Liberal Justin Trudeau has a plan to raise taxes on the top one per cent of earners to better support the middle class; NDP leader Tom Mulcair would raise corporate taxes to cover new spending on childcare and other supports; and Conservative leader Stephen Harper will stand on his record, even though it includes a lacklustre recovery from the 2008 financial crisis that has seen Canada dip back into recession this year.
Will the other leaders allow him to conflate running a surplus government budget with building a strong economy, or will they make the case that austerity has its dangers too? And will Green Party leader Elizabeth May, uninvited to the debate but planning to take part via Twitter, manage to get her voice heard?
We'll be watching for those answers, along with whether any of the leaders will mention poverty, inequality and the need for a plan that better shares the nation's wealth. Watch it on CPAC, YouTube, or the Globe's mobile app tonight. -- Andrew MacLeod, legislative bureau chief
Don't believe polls.
Isn't that the truth. Over the past two or three weeks. every day and night I receive e-mails that show each of the three major parties as the "flavour of the day" and Harper and Mulcair swapping places as the most preferred PM. Obviously, the only poll that counts is the one on October 19th.
Before we all shout from the rooftops that "polls can't be believed," let's recall that the NDP was supposed to win in BC, and was trounced by Christy Clark.
That victory almost certainly was the result of some very expensive polling on the part of the Liberals.
The better response is that cheap, small polls can't be trusted. If you have the money to do big, intensive polling that drills down past the superficial "who will you vote for" questions, you can make the kind of fine tuned moves that will swing just enough voters to your side.
No doubt, right now, the Conservatives have by a large margin the biggest and most detailed polling operation in the country, and certainly are polling much more effectively than any media outlet.
The results of that polling will directly influence their advertising, and the "leaks" and other less obvious campaign tactics.
Does anyone think that Harper's anti-immigrant rhetoric would have been as loud if they hadn't already determined that there was a reasonably large part of the electorate who liked it?
All of this states the obvious: having a truckload of money does greatly enhance your chance of winning.
Don't recall any "anti-immigrant rhetoric". Heard that Canada brings in more immigrants per capita (under Harper) than any other western nation and that we should ensure the security of our citizens by properly screening refugee claimants. Both seem appropriate unless you're into knee jerk reactions.
The polling that Barry is referring to was done by the Liberal Party of BC for their own use only. They never released the results. So they knew, or at least were pretty sure, they were going to win but nobody else did.
The Conservatives are very likely doing something similar, and it will probably stay as internal information. The nightly tracking done by Nanos and all the other pollsters who call or e-mail is completely separate and those are probably the small samples he refers to.
I never heard any anti-immigrant rhetoric either. What I did hear was that the government was putting public safety for Canadians first and foremost and not opening the floodgates to all and sundry without proper scrutiny -- would you disagree, Barry? However, they listened and realized that the public wanted the process fast-tracked, and they have responded accordingly. I am all for helping people flee a situation like the one in Syria, but I do NOT WANT to speed it up so much that we let some Jihadist sneak in to continue his or her dirty work from here.
OH NOES! WOMEN WITH NIQABS!
Hide under the bed!
They're all TERRERISTS!
Seriously. Harper has been playing the "terrorist" card for ages. "Terrorist" basically meaning "people with brown skin."
It's pure and utter bullshit, and anyone here could name a hundred - no, a thousand things that threaten us much, much more than "terrorists."
Your hair dryer falling into your bath is a bigger threat than an attack by terrorists. Harper is a Republican, not a Conservative and he's trying to drag us down the same rabbit hole of fear that the American GOP is so fond of.
Will Saxton show up or continue to hide
Are you adults? You don't think that refugee due diligence spelled out by the United Nations (not the Prime Minister) is appropriate? Your responses sound far more like misinformed hysteria than anything we see from a reasoned and conservative approach.
Don't worry no one should try to change your views by discussing the facts. The jihadists in the London subway and bus bombings, Spain train bombing, London soldier beheading, Parisian cartoonist slaying, last month's failed French train attack come to mind. Our homegrown recent attack and slaying on Parliament hill, failed beheading of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, failed BC legislature bombing imply that there is potential for jihadist violence in our country that is contrary to your view.
Nothing happening on this planet folks, just move along.
Anon. 10:58
You are the problem. You wrote: "Your responses sound far more like misinformed hysteria than anything we see from a reasoned and conservative approach."
The operative word in your comment is "conservative."
The labelling of political parties in Canada based on such nomenclature has failed.
Let's vote for the people we believe will do a good job of running Canada.
One notices that you do not refute the UN directive toward proper screening of refugees. You do not refute that Canada currently brings in the greatest number of refugees per capita. You don't even refute the numerous widely documented attacks and attempted attacks both within and outside of our country by an identifiable small population.
The folks who attempt murder are the problem. They are tacitly supported by those who have willful blindness toward their actions. That is a problem.
Harper's fear based politics aren't going unnoticed:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ralph-nader-stephen-harper-is-selling-the-politics-of-fear-1.2964072
Nifty catch-phrase, "fear based politics". Ralph Nader? Yesterday-man (American!?), left-wing consumer watchdog and eternally failed politician. Last time he was right was 40 years ago when he campaigned against the Chevrolet Corvair. That's your best reference. Really?
Facts are such pesky things. Ignoring them really damages your creds. It shouldn't be a shocker that fact deniers remain in denial. Wish you well in la-la land. The list of worldwide murderous behaviors from 911 forward is ongoing and growing. World politics isn't Mr. Rogers.
Lastly, for clarification. A complete misunderstanding by the left of "fear" in relationship to terrorism. Due diligence isn't fear. It is the opposite of fear. It is mature responsibility undertaken in the absence of fear. I certainly don't fear violent people for myself. I am entirely capable of looking after myself and those around me. Those sweet, hopelessly unprepared folks that should have fear never will have the insight to be aware of it. Criminals who undertake unlawful acts rely upon it. Good luck.
Canada currently brings in the greatest number of refugees per capita
Sweet mother of God. Is there no limit on how tall a tale the Harperites will spin? Or is that claim based on Fraser Institute "research?"
According to that virulently left wing publication "Forbes," Canada doesn't even crack the top ten.
A Guardian report puts us at number twenty on the list of "Asylum seekers per million population." (2013).
The Canadian Council for Refugees (using UNHCR data) placed us at 33rd in 2012!
And, just to cap things off, earlier this month it was reported, again based on UNHCR data, that we had slipped to 41st.
The Harper claim that we are in any way doing our share is a complete lie.
As are the boogie man stories about terrorists hiding in the bushes and under our beds.
The defining characteristic of the guy who shot up Parliament Hill was his severe mental illness. Being a wannabe Muslim was mostly just a coincidence, and he had no credible connection to any allegedly terrorist organization.
The "plot" to behead Harper was cooked up by a bunch of teenagers, and it was extremely unlikely that it ever would have happened. If we locked up every teen-aged boy who sat around with his pals and daydreamed about criminal acts we'd have an incarceration rate to rival the US.
The pressure cooker bombers were just pathetic. Even the police admitted that without being guided, trained, and cajoled by undercover cops posing as radicals it was almost impossible that the two junkie idiots would have come up with a viable plan, much less managed to execute it.
I mean seriously, they wanted to hijack a Trident submarine!
I'll agree that at every opportunity Harper leaps up and shouts "Terrorist!"
It sells to his base, and it gets reported because it sells newspapers.
That doesn't mean it's true, and it doesn't mean that there's anything remotely like a terrorist threat in Canada.
I'll challenge you now to back up these ridiculous claims by showing us one serious, credible terrorist attack, with an actual likelihood of ever succeeding, not involving teen-agers or drug addicts, not largely created by undercover police, with a documented connection to a recognized "terrorist" group, that happened within our borders.
If there was such a plot you can be sure that we would have heard about it.
Jesus, you sound just like a Republican.
"Jesus, you sound just like a Republican." was intended for Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:29:00 p.m., not for Barry Rueger who posted just as I was writing.
(addendum: the Air India bombing in 1985 would be an exception. Although I haven't heard much from the PMO about Sikh "terrorists.")
The world has become a very small place. Canada was named as an enemy of Islam and worthy of jihad (please ignore this fact too). Love how you point out the mental instability of some of our attempted murderers as if that somehow pardons their ambition. Really nothing is too much for you.
I hope that your smug sense of invincibility is well placed and that it is an absurd proposition to take standard precautions.
Apologize for wrecking your fairy story with the facts. Cheers.
Barry, move to Syria.
"Standard precautions?"
Who decides these "standard precautions?"
Anon 8:26 you truly are a fearmonger.
Anon 1:14. Thank you for your comment. The United Nations has a protocol for the processing of refugees to identify and exclude persons with criminal backgrounds. Most nations that accept significant refugee populations implement these processing procedures.
The government of each nation makes the determination whether or not to take these "standard precautions".
Hoping that this information is helpful as you are truly clueless.
The only clueless person here is the one blindly following Harper down the path to American-style Republicanism. He does not represent Canadian values.
The Tyee has put out a challenge to all candidates, other than Conservatives, to withdraw themselves from the race if they have little or no chance of winning. This is in the interest of getting rid of the Conservatives (not splitting the vote) and an excellent idea I believe.
I had to cut this short for blog laws of maximum content.
No-chance Candidates Have One Week to Quit for Good of Canada
Running against Harper? Take this Canada First Pledge. Voters, demand this!
By David Beers, 21 Sep 2015, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
WhiteFlag_300px.jpg
Noble surrender: to up odds of defeating Harper, candidates who know they can't win should withdraw their names from the ballot by next Monday's deadline. Surrender flag image: Shutterstock.
Related
Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled
The Tyee's full, updated list of 70 Harper government assaults on democracy and the law.
Proportional Representation: So Close, Supporters Can Taste It
But as Vancouver panel notes, electoral reform alone won't mean the end of Canada's democracy woes.
How Leadnow Will Push Strategic Voting to Defeat Tories
To avoid splits, organization asks supporters: 'Vote with your head, not just your heart.'
Read more: Federal Politics, Election 2015,
[Editor's note: David Beers is The Tyee's founding editor. The columns he writes for these pages during the election are his own views and not the editorial position of The Tyee.]
Federal candidates with no hope of winning (and by now you know who you are):
You have one week to do the right thing. Withdraw your nomination. Get out of the race. Remove your name from the ballot."
Read the rest at Thetyee.com
"Federal candidates with no hope of winning (and by now you know who you are):
You have one week to do the right thing. Withdraw your nomination. Get out of the race. Remove your name from the ballot." ??!
LoL! What world does The Tyee live in?
The real world of vote-splitting.
Interesting comments regarding Harper, Harperite (Barry), Republicans, Canadian values etc. if you agree with the UN refugee protocol.
FYI those that tend to agree with the UN are left-leaning Democrats (definitely NOT the Republicans) and the left in Canada. Clueless.
Chiheb Esseghaier, a Tunisian citizen, and Raed Jaser, a Jordanian have been sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiring to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group (Al-Qaeda) in Canada. They intended to kill passengers by secreting bombs on a Via rail passenger train. This is hauntingly familiar to the successful Al-Qaeda train bombing in Madrid which killed 191 and wounded 1800. Al-Qaeda was named as the source of this act.
In the news today. A Supreme Court Judge is reported to have sentenced them to an additional 18 years and 13 years respectively for additional lesser charges.
I am thankful that our authorities take the precautions that they do.
What about climate precautions? Many more people die, are injured, or are inconvenienced financially or otherwise because of natural disasters, or man-made corporate disasters in Canada than are even remotely impacted by terrorism. So let's spend OUR tax money where it is most needed.
Additionally, how many people are killed by automobiles, gang violence, domestic violence, poverty and disease? I think we should be focusing more on these than focus on the spectre of fear that Harper and his ilk would distract us with. look at the numbers and tell me that we don't have domestic causes for thousands of deaths each year that we should be more worried about. Don't blame legitimate refugees for your xenophobia and fear.
The total hypocrisy of the Harper government is made evident by his cut-backs to the Canadian veterans who come home with problems after serving "Harper" and are not properly looked after. For Shame!
I haven't blamed legitimate refugees for anything at all notwithstanding your inaccurate assumption.
Yes, each of the ways to be in a mess requires due diligence.
To ignore that sensible diligence for any of them is foolish and negligent.
It is obvious that anybody who has decided to dislike Harper and the Conservatives will choose any reason to do so, without really thinking how foolish they sound. Yes, we have veterans with challenges, gang and domestic violence, poverty and disease. There are tons of resources being put towards these issues, and yet they continue, despite everything being done. So why on earth would we add to the burden of things to worry about by NOT being careful about who we let into our country. I have a philosophy for my own life and that is to not tempt fate. It is no different with immigration. Letting people into our country as refugees without first determining that they are not a threat to our national security is not only prudent, it is necessary. To do otherwise is folly.
OK, I get it. Measles and mumps are pretty common and diptheria is more rare. So when you get your shot just get the more likely vaccines and take your chances on the rare one.
If you try to prevent the more unlikely one you are fearful germaphobe.
Anon. 2:32
Your first sentence is beyond contempt. He makes his decisions and they make people like me dislike his politics. This is Canada and we are supposed to have a democracy.
Giffin, I think that your first sentence is quite astute, as is the balance of your comment.
Anon 2:46, your last sentence is beyond naive. With a majority government we have 5 year dictatorships where some of us have a limited choice of our dictator and his/her party policies. All the same for every party, remember Chretien and Trudeau Sr? The NDP would be the same. Reality check.
Anon 2:40 - you are being much too simplistic. One or two terrorists can murder thousands of people with a well executed (no pun intended) plot. So picture this. The Conservative government lets in 10,000 Syrians and 9,998 of them are genuine refugees fleeing a terrible regime, while the other two hide amongst them only to do their evil deeds somewhere. Who will you blame when it's discovered who they are and how they got in? No matter how low the chances of being affected, I'll take precautions for both, thanks, one the vaccination and the other careful scrutiny of all who enter. (I assume you lock your doors at night????)
Giffin- Who will I blame? Why Anons 12:48, 1:45 and Barry obviously.
Griffin,
I used to respect you for your comments. I no longer do.
Why, because I poked holes in your argument?
Let's focus our energy on the problems at home, rather than give over to fear over the minuscule (two deaths in Canada by terrorist acts in ten years). Two deaths too many for certain, but let's not get carried away by sacrificing our freedoms and huge sums of tax payer dollars in the name of "security". We're becoming as silly as our neighbours to the South.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-difference-between-moose-and-terrorists/
That's all well and good, but the situation today is a lot different than it was ten years ago. And as for comparing us to our neighbours to the south, we have a long way to go before we're that paranoid.
We are focusing our energy on problems at home by including prudent vigilance against terrorism in that focus.
We? Are you a member of the PMO, anon 4:01?
No, "we" are Canadians.
So, you speak for all Canadians?
Did I say all Canadians? I am factually stating how Canadian security personnel, on behalf of Canadians, currently scrutinize refugee and immigrant candidates.
On another note I find it infantile when those that take a contrary position use pretending to be thick as a tactic.
Perhaps a party willing to ease the process may be elected and we will see the ramifications of that but not my preference.
Nor mine. I am heartened to see that NDP support seems to be slipping, perhaps as Liberal support rises, but not too much please. I do not want to turn over management of the country to a bunch of rank amateurs.
Post a Comment