Federal Elections

[J.OT13]

I always disliked Skippy. Seems like such a negative, all around shitty person. His entire campaign the last 3 years were about Trudeau bad, axe the tax. When both were gone, he had nothing left to campaign on. His "Canada is broke" B.S. probably really hurt him in the recent surge or patriotism in the face of the Trump threats.

And the guy, even if he suddenly pretended to hate Trump, has always been very Trumpish with his culture wards and obsession with crowd sizes. His support for the illegal occupation "Freedom" Convoy, attended by mostly Trump supporters, was a dumb move (and then the Police Association supporting the guy who supported the illegal occupation, but that's another subject).

Poilievre is not the guy to lead the Conservatives. They need to find a reasonable candidate who's more centrist, has actual ideas, not just slogans and attacks.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I always disliked Skippy. Seems like such a negative, all around shitty person. His entire campaign the last 3 years were about Trudeau bad, axe the tax. When both were gone, he had nothing left to campaign on. His "Canada is broke" B.S. probably really hurt him in the recent surge or patriotism in the face of the Trump threats.

And the guy, even if he suddenly pretended to hate Trump, has always been very Trumpish with his culture wards and obsession with crowd sizes. His support for the illegal occupation "Freedom" Convoy, attended by mostly Trump supporters, was a dumb move (and then the Police Association supporting the guy who supported the illegal occupation, but that's another subject).

Poilievre is not the guy to lead the Conservatives. They need to find a reasonable candidate who's more centrist, has actual ideas, not just slogans and attacks.

I agree and would love to see a more centrist candidate, but I don't think it's in the cards.

Maybe not a huge factor, but I found their "bring it home" slogan to be pretty obnoxious. Not sure who it was intended to appeal to, other than partisan zealots.

[urbanforest]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I'd like to read that data. Can you post it, or point me to it?

I don’t know exactly what William was referring to, but this recent video from About Here is a relevant and worthwhile jumping off point:

About Here: The Housing Tax Crisis https://youtu.be/ZEUR9bj89lo?feature=shared

[rocketphish]

NOTICE: Posts that claim that some point of view, or other such thing, is supported by data, but don't provide evidence of that data, are basically trolling... the digital equivalent of playground taunts. At best they are examples of self-righteousness; at worst they are disinformation.

Henceforth, any such posts may be subject to deletion.

[urbanforest]

That doesn’t seem like a measured response.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by urbanforest

That doesn’t seem like a measured response.

That is a response to post #451, and others like it, not to yours.

This has become a problem in the Current Events subforums, where a similar source citation policy had to be put in place.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

Bizarre, but quite satisfying. I wasn't expecting that, but apparently cozying up to the convoy actually cost him.

I was hearing from folks working the election in Stittsville and Riverside South, and they could hear the train coming in the last week or so. It seems like a lot of people who could tolerate him as a backbench government, or even opposition MP, thought that putting him in actual charge was a step too far. And that included a lot of formerly Conservative voters.

[Richard Eade]

Although I would generally classify myself as a voter for conservative ideas, and have, more often than not, voted for a Conservative party, there was something about PP that made me withhold my vote from him. Reading his view on what he learned from his recent election loss has clarified things for me.

PP talked about his loss in a recent CTV News article:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/...tive-mps-opt-for-power-to-remove-leader/

Speaking outside Parliament Hill for the first time since both losing a seat he’d held for two decades and missing his first shot at becoming prime minister, Poilievre said with Canada looking more like a “two-party map” the Conservatives need to find a way to pick up one million more votes to “get over the finish line,” come the next election.
“We have to spend a lot of the summer listening carefully to people in the communities, coffee shops, and town halls and other events. We can find out who are the people that are most likely to join this growing movement,” Poilievre said.

His statements make it clear to me that his priority is not Canada. It is for him to become the Prime Minister. For PP, it is a game that he must win; a “finish line” to cross.

He pledged to “spend a lot of the summer listening carefully to people”. Only “a lot of the summer”? That seems oddly limited. But in reading his words, I get the feeling that maybe he is not trying to gather grass-root opinions about how to improve Canada. What he will be “listening” for are ways to coerce people to join his movement. A completely self-serving goal.

If PP had come out and said that he recognizes that his personal loss was a statement about his leadership. That he understands that he needs to listen to find out what people are really looking for in some-one who can lead the country. Then I would have had a better feeling about him. I could have felt that, maybe, he had learned something about how people see him and how he needs to change. Instead, his words tell me that he is simply going to continue doing and saying what is needed to achieve his goal. That he doesn’t need to change anything – except to change the minds of one-million voters. They are the problem, not him.

This would also be why PP has chosen to run in the safest by-election seat that he could. He doesn’t want a re-test on whether the public thinks that he would be a suitable leader of the country. Using such a safe seat virtually assures that he can continue his quest without being questioned again.

Of the leaders of the main four parties, I think that EM and JS were really committed to the policies that they espoused. They, I think, truly feel that their policies would make the country better. I even think that MC truly believes that he is working to better the country. PP, in my view, is only trying to advance himself.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Although I would generally classify myself as a voter for conservative ideas, and have, more often than not, voted for a Conservative party, there was something about PP that made me withhold my vote from him. Reading his view on what he learned from his recent election loss has clarified things for me.

PP talked about his loss in a recent CTV News article:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/...tive-mps-opt-for-power-to-remove-leader/

His statements make it clear to me that his priority is not Canada. It is for him to become the Prime Minister. For PP, it is a game that he must win; a “finish line” to cross.

He pledged to “spend a lot of the summer listening carefully to people”. Only “a lot of the summer”? That seems oddly limited. But in reading his words, I get the feeling that maybe he is not trying to gather grass-root opinions about how to improve Canada. What he will be “listening” for are ways to coerce people to join his movement. A completely self-serving goal.

If PP had come out and said that he recognizes that his personal loss was a statement about his leadership. That he understands that he needs to listen to find out what people are really looking for in some-one who can lead the country. Then I would have had a better feeling about him. I could have felt that, maybe, he had learned something about how people see him and how he needs to change. Instead, his words tell me that he is simply going to continue doing and saying what is needed to achieve his goal. That he doesn’t need to change anything – except to change the minds of one-million voters. They are the problem, not him.

This would also be why PP has chosen to run in the safest by-election seat that he could. He doesn’t want a re-test on whether the public thinks that he would be a suitable leader of the country. Using such a safe seat virtually assures that he can continue his quest without being questioned again.

Of the leaders of the main four parties, I think that EM and JS were really committed to the policies that they espoused. They, I think, truly feel that their policies would make the country better. I even think that MC truly believes that he is working to better the country. PP, in my view, is only trying to advance himself.

Fully agree with you. Skippy has been self serving from the very beginning. He was always in it for personal gain and for the spotlight, not to make Canada better. Silencing his own MPs and barring them from taking advantage of Liberal programs to improve their communities (housing for example, which he claims is important). The CPC is PP, not the local MPs who know their communities.

[J.OT13]

Poilievre staying in Stornoway pending by-election

Ian Bailey, The Globe and Mail
May 13, 2025

Pierre Poilievre is staying put in the residence of the leader of the Official Opposition even though the federal Conservative Leader lost his riding in the recent election.

Andrew Scheer, now acting as the interim Official Opposition leader in Mr. Poilievre’s absence, confirmed the plans on Monday.

The fact that the Conservative Leader no longer sits in the House of Commons has raised questions about whether he is entitled to live in Stornoway. But Mr. Scheer says it doesn’t make sense for Mr. Poilievre and his family to move out of the home in Ottawa’s Rockcliffe neighbourhood, given Mr. Poilievre’s chances of winning a seat in a pending Alberta by-election.

“It would be more costly to taxpayers to move the family out and then right back into the residence later this summer,” Mr. Scheer said in a statement on Monday.

“I have no intention to move into the residence and so we expect the family will just remain there through this short transition phase,” he said.

Mr. Poilievre was defeated in his Ottawa-area riding of Carleton in last month’s federal election after having represented the riding and its predecessors in the area for 20 years.

The Official Residences Act, which governs Stornoway and other official properties including the prime minister’s residence, notes that Stornoway is to be provided for the person holding the position of “Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.”

Mr. Poilievre is now poised to run in a by-election in the Alberta riding of Battle River-Crowfoot where voters elected Conservative Damien Kurek with 82.8 per cent of the vote.

Mr. Kurek has announced he will step down so Mr. Poilievre can run in the riding.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he will call a by-election as soon as possible, providing the opportunity for Mr. Poilievre to win a seat so he can return to the House of Commons and his Commons leadership post.

Upon winning the Conservative leadership in the fall of 2022, Mr. Poilievre moved into Stornoway with his family.

The 9,500-square-foot house, which was built in 1913, has been the official residence of Canada’s Official Opposition leaders since 1950.

The first resident was George Drew, who came to federal politics after serving as Ontario premier for five years.

Since 1970, the residence has been owned by the federal government. The National Capital Commission has managed the property since 1988.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics...taying-in-stornoway-pending-by-election/

[J.OT13]

That headline again:

Unemployed man squatting in Government mansion

Guy has become everything he hates. Unemployed, seeking handouts and living on the Government's dime, social housing if you will.

Everything Carney is doing for Poilievre; calling a by-election quickly, letting him stay in Stornoway, it's all the right move. It's the decent thing to do. I highly doubt however, that Skippy would have done the same had the tables been turned, sort of like Smith not calling a by-election for Nenshi, the Alberta NDP Leader. And of course, the hypocrisy of Skippy living off the Government and making others hand him everything he wants.

Quite frankly, after bashing Trudeau for having Rideau Cottage, 24 Sussex for the kitchen and Harrington Lake , Poilievre should never have accepted Stornoway in the first place since he already lived in Ottawa.

[Richard Eade]

I think that there needs to be some real reform to the electoral systems in Canada.

One big change that I would like to see is that candidates MUST sign a declaration that they will SERVE FOR AT LEAST 1 YEAR (barring any unforeseen major issue, which must be agreed to in a private meeting of representatives from all parties) from their swearing-in date. This would put an end to this business of getting elected just to quit and force a by-election. This would go for every level, from municipal to federal. The public votes for a candidate in good faith, expecting that person to represent them. The candidate needs to show good faith back and live up to the agreement.

There can be a provision to allow an election winner to voluntarily step down within the first year of office – but they (or their party) MUST PAY ALL COSTS FOR A BY-ELECTION. The public should not have to pay for by-elections that are forced by the whim of an elected person.

If there is any compensation from the public purse paid to candidates for their election expenses, including tax write-offs, these should be held and PAID ONLY AFTER THE 1 YEAR REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET. If the person chooses to leave before the anniversary of their swearing-in, they forfeit any compensation.

In the case of the leader of the federal ruling, or loyal opposition, party losing their seat; with the above requirement, they could be out of the Commons for an extended time. That is, unless a by-election came up because of a major issue (say, health), it would be at least 1 year from the swearing-in date before someone could volunteer to step aside to make way for the leader to run. Unless, of course, the affected party was footing the ENTIRE bill for a sooner by-election.

A federal party leader who did not win a seat in the Commons during the general election, would be REQUIRED TO RUN IN THE FIRST AVAILABLE BY-ELECTION. This would put an end to ‘Cherry-Picking’ safe ridings.

In the meantime, if that leader had already been living, prior to the general election, in the official residence, and it was agreed by all parties that there was a very good chance of the leader winning a seat in the next by-election, then the affected party would be able to PAY RENT FOR THE RESIDENCE. The rent would start at market rate and double after each by-election (or group of by-elections, if they are held on, or close to, the same date). This would allow the party leader to remain in place until they gained re-entry to the Commons. But it would provide incentive to not skip by-elections.

So, in this case, I would say that PP could stay, but his party should pay to rent Stornoway. And the CPC should be paying the full cost for forcing an otherwise unnecessary by-election in Battle River – Crowfoot, Alberta.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I think that there needs to be some real reform to the electoral systems in Canada.

One big change that I would like to see is that candidates MUST sign a declaration that they will SERVE FOR AT LEAST 1 YEAR (barring any unforeseen major issue, which must be agreed to in a private meeting of representatives from all parties) from their swearing-in date. This would put an end to this business of getting elected just to quit and force a by-election. This would go for every level, from municipal to federal. The public votes for a candidate in good faith, expecting that person to represent them. The candidate needs to show good faith back and live up to the agreement.

There can be a provision to allow an election winner to voluntarily step down within the first year of office – but they (or their party) MUST PAY ALL COSTS FOR A BY-ELECTION. The public should not have to pay for by-elections that are forced by the whim of an elected person.

If there is any compensation from the public purse paid to candidates for their election expenses, including tax write-offs, these should be held and PAID ONLY AFTER THE 1 YEAR REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET. If the person chooses to leave before the anniversary of their swearing-in, they forfeit any compensation.

In the case of the leader of the federal ruling, or loyal opposition, party losing their seat; with the above requirement, they could be out of the Commons for an extended time. That is, unless a by-election came up because of a major issue (say, health), it would be at least 1 year from the swearing-in date before someone could volunteer to step aside to make way for the leader to run. Unless, of course, the affected party was footing the ENTIRE bill for a sooner by-election.

A federal party leader who did not win a seat in the Commons during the general election, would be REQUIRED TO RUN IN THE FIRST AVAILABLE BY-ELECTION. This would put an end to ‘Cherry-Picking’ safe ridings.

In the meantime, if that leader had already been living, prior to the general election, in the official residence, and it was agreed by all parties that there was a very good chance of the leader winning a seat in the next by-election, then the affected party would be able to PAY RENT FOR THE RESIDENCE. The rent would start at market rate and double after each by-election (or group of by-elections, if they are held on, or close to, the same date). This would allow the party leader to remain in place until they gained re-entry to the Commons. But it would provide incentive to not skip by-elections.

So, in this case, I would say that PP could stay, but his party should pay to rent Stornoway. And the CPC should be paying the full cost for forcing an otherwise unnecessary by-election in Battle River – Crowfoot, Alberta.

I 100% agree. I think of Andrea Horwath who won her Hamilton seat, but she did not become Premier and so immediately quit to run for Mayor of Hamilton. Even Nussbaum, I'm a huge fan of his work at the NCC, but he quit the seat he had just won to become the head of the NCC. A lot of these people take their elected positions for granted and don't think twice about jumping ships if a better opportunity comes up. An Liberal MPP in Vanier (Nathalie Des Rosiers) did the same, staying a little over a year of her second term just to quit and take a better job in Toronto.

Unless someone has to step down for health issues, mental health or to take care of a loved one, very few other reasons are valid.

And what Skippy's doing now, forcing a well liked MP to quit his job so he can have a go at it in one of the safest ridings in Canada for the Cons, it's insulting to tax payers.