UPDATE: Second Labrador by-election in eight years (and third in fifteen)
[Welcome, National Newswatch readers!]
The resignation of first-time Labrador Conservative M.P. and one-time President of the Innu Nation, Peter Penashue, means that a by-election will be held in this northern seat as soon as May 6, 2013.
Penashue (pen-AA-shoe-way) wants to be a candidate in that by-election, but said in a statement that he's resigning after learning that his first official agent had accepted some "ineligible campaign donations". However a statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office merely thanked the Minister for his service, leading some to wonder whether he would receive his party's endorsement for a second run. Luckily the Twitter assures us he will indeed be a candidate.
The riding of Labrador, NL – with the notable exception of 2008 – has seen a long-term decline in Liberal support, mirrored by a growing trend-line for conservatives, though 2011 was the first election in which the Conservatives were able to convert that to a win. Liberal candidate Lawrence O'Brien replaced the retiring Liberal M.P. Bill Rompkey in a 1996 by-election [UPDATE: and NOT in 1993, as earlier written], and was re-elected three more times until his untimely death from cancer forced a second by-election in 2005.
That by-election was won for the Liberals by then-President of the Labrador Métis Federation, Todd Russell, who was in turn narrowly defeated by Innu leader Penashue in 2011 — exactly 22 days before Russell would have been able to vest his MP's pension.
I hate to be cynical, and I'm really not cynical about these things in general, but a 79-vote margin plus 22 days to an inflation-protected pension of whatever size have got to add up to pretty strong incentives to try and run again. Particularly when Russell's typical raw vote of 5,500 or so could be worth as much as 70% of the vote in the famous "ABC campaign" election of 2008, which saw large numbers of Conservative voters stay home, and figuring on a typical low-turnout by-election, he would have to like his chances.
But Russell will probably have some problems to contend with himself. For one thing, the NDP has long coveted the riding, given their reasonably concentrated base of support in Labrador City in the west of the riding where they have occasionally won a provincial seat. The party has long aspired to find the right candidate to bridge that base with other potential pockets of support. And while it benefitted to a lesser extent than the Liberals from the 2008 "Anyone-but-Conservative" campaign, the NDP did at least move into second place with a solid 20% of the vote in that election, and unlike the Liberals were able to maintain their vote share in 2011.
For another thing, the provincial Liberals are not the party benefitting from PC premier Kathy Dunderdale's mid-term unpopularity on the provincial scene, the NDP is – topping the provincial polls for the first time in history.
Now, Penashue's own 2011 candidacy was controversial within the Innu Nation, which was not unanimous in its support for the various deals its leadership had signed onto with the federal and provincial governments, and who historically have not voted at all in federal or provincial elections, much to the chagrin of the NDP which always considered them natural allies.
Other significant voting blocks in the riding include the Labrador Inuit up the coast, and the residents of Happy Valley-Goose Bay (especially those who work at the Airforce Base there). And looking at a map of the poll-by-poll results, the various regions break down much as you would expect, with Happy Valley-Goose Bay the red dot in the middle.
[Click on map below to open up interactive version on the Pundits' Guide riding profile page for Labrador]
Now, I don't claim to be an expert in the field of energy, but the Muskrat Falls project in Labrador, and its relationship to the Maritime Link project, will undoubtedly be an issue in the by-election. It pits Newfoundland & Labrador against Québec, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair against the Québec National Assembly, Peter Penashue against his own mother apparently, the Nova Scotia NDP government against their currently more popular rivals in the Nova Scotia Liberal Party, and some federal Liberal leadership candidates against each other.
But I don't think you can tip-toe through the tundra on this issue, and expect to win a Labrador by-election right now. Whatever his newfound reputation difficulties on the national stage, Peter Penashue is a local boy made good, who brought federal investments to his riding. It's hard to out-organize an incumbent in a remote riding like this at the best of times, and those two factors alone would tend to make him the early favourite.
Assuming Penashue's resignation reached the Commons Speaker today, and gets from there to the Chief Electoral officer within the next few days after that, the Prime Minister will be able to call a by-election as early as the last week of March for Monday May 6. The last day to call it would be sometime in early September for a date on or after mid-to-late October.
Tags: Labrador
Alice looking at this CBC story from last fall its pretty obvious Russel wants to run again:
‘Peter was a cheater,’ ex-MP Russell says
Former Liberal MP says Peter Penashue only won because he broke the rules.
Russell said he’s backing the idea of a new election.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/10/18/nl-russell-responds-penashue-1018.html
Tough one to call, particularly in area most don’t know.
We only Peter is running in the Tory party but nomination battles perhaps in the other two. Greens are not a factor with their anti seal hunt and generally anti Labrador attitude.
Russell was kicked for a reason, probably because the Innu deserved to be represented in that riding and feeling that their candidate was discriminated against may be strong there.
The NDP could be a natural fit there, if they nominate a local boy with a real connection there and not a Tom like dutch disease type who spits on the oil industry that has been a boon to unemployed NFLDers.
A quick election gives the edge to Peter and Harper knows his strategy.
With only not we only
I hate laptops
Actually Russell hasn’t decided yet, but Yvonne Jones will seek the nomination.
chg don’t take what people say at face value.
Politicians will have often made up their mind one way or another and yet claim to be “undecided” for any number of reasons.
Sometimes they have no intention of running but dangle their name out there to increase their profile.
Sometimes they know they are running but need to tie up loose ends and form a campaign so they claim to still be making up their mind.
Perhaps that is what Russel is doing now with regards to his role with a Metis organization. Exploring whether he can take a leave or if he has to resign – that sort of thing.
But the way Russel has followed this issue and maintained contact with the media suggests he’s either bitter or wants his seat back.
You dont have to be a cynic to see the resignation as a set-up.
Step 1: Penashue resigns to beat Elections Canada removing him.
Step 2: By-election called quickly so that Eday is before the embarassment of EC findings.
Thats not only the cynic partisan’s take. Its just plain speculative. I’m putting out here as a foil if you like, for discussing some facts/questions.
I hear on the radio that maybe EC wouldn’t even allow P. to run. That’s premature, since there has not been a ruling against him. But supposing they did, before voting day… can EC do that? Is it a realistic option?
Again assuming EC finds against Penashue: does the closeness of the 2011 race come into play on whether removing him from office is warranted? [Is it one consideration in the semi-judical process.]
Supposing he runs again and wins, could he be removed from office? IE, does the fact he resigned for admitted infractions, have no bearing on whether he could be removed?
Maybe these aren’t the best questions. I’m looking for facts about the EC process Penashue is into, regardless of resigning, new elections, etc.
With the recent failed Search and Rescue, and I heard mention of the loss of a Search and Rescue station, his effectiveness for the community, seems questionable.
Ken, very interesting ideas and questions that I don’t know the answers to.
I thought the cynicism here was about Russell and what he is thinking and what his motives might be. Did he also do something illegal? I’m not quite getting why people are trying to figure out Russell’s motivations of why he might run again. But, Shadow, I agree that I should have said Russell, unlike Jones, has not announced if he will run again.
I listened to Todd Russell on CBC Labrador Morning online today, and he just started a new job where they’re counting on him. It might be a difficult choice to walk from that right now.
People, not everything is a freaking conspiracy. Try and imagine yourself in the person’s shoes and use some common sense.
Ken EC doesn’t remove anybody from office.
It takes a federal court to do that and under section 524 (1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act: there needs to be a finding of irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices that affected the result of the election.
I think you mean to say Penashue has gotten ahead of a referal to the director of public prosecution by EC with a recomendation that he be indicted for violations under the elections act.
But that’s assuming there wouldn’t be some kind of compliance agreement between Penashue and EC or with Penashue and the prosecutor.
Section 502 lists the various illegal and corrupt practices you can be charged with under the act including (1)(c) willfully exceeding election expenses.
Being found guilty of them carries a 5 or 7 year ban on being a member of the house of commons.
So to answer your question the ONLY way he gets kicked out AFTER winning a by-election is if he’s charged and found guilty and is then banned from holding office.
Interestingly in his statement of resignation he blamed his returning agent’s “inexperience”. In this case, ignorance of the law IS an excuse and the difference between a slap on the wrist compliance agreement and a serious crime.
I’m actually really dissapointed to hear people in the media and on comment boards saying he should be banned from running.
Its terribly undemocratic and the partisan motivation is obvious:
with him gone the Conservatives would lose this riding.
Its also insulting to the people in his riding. Trust their judgement. If you think he’s a cheater then say so.
Let the people decide.
Banning people from running for dubious reasons is common place in third world countries. The potential for abuse is HUGE.
Canada rightly sets the bar very high.
Shadow, that section 524 (1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act you referenced does not seem to be the right one. From an older version maybe?
I’m curious to know at what point the courts take over [if an MP is to be removed], and where EC action/initiative towards that ends.
But practicaly speaking in this case, I rather doubt a possibility of things going that far was a concern of the PMO in orchestrating how to get ahead of this.
Substantively speaking, the Reg Bower CBC interview yesterday, with some of the print versions, was interesting. I dont know why the CBC didnt cut out the parts of Evan Solomon trying to drive a wedge between Bowers and Penashue. Just sounds dumb when he keeps at it when Bowers is not going there.
Bowers is sticking with being the good soldier. His only hesitation was in supporting Penashue’s characterization of him as an “inexperienced volunteer”.
But he was quite willing to play the rube when he talked about the mechanics of taking in all those corporate donations. There is no way his account washes.
And that’s a deft touch from the PMO to spin this as $30,000 in ineligible contributions that had to be paid back. Not a small number, but the real $46,000 sounds much worse. And the $30K figure is what gets used in most of the media hits.
Had they waited for this to unfold at EC’s glacial pace, it would likely just be hitting stride in 2015.
Much better to get ahead of it now, when they can do a much better job of spinning it their way. And in the end, there are so many ‘details’. Could be anything, you know.
But if you all want to call it Penashue putting himself to the voters for them to determine, it’s hard to argue with that.
Hi Ken here was where I was looking at that:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part20&lang=e
Its interesting that the application has to be made by an elector in the riding or one of the candidates and not EC.
As far as I can tell EC really can’t take any role in that. Perhaps lawmakers figured there would be enough partisans with a vested interest that accountability would come from that.
One would think that if EC recomeneded a prosecution for illegal or corrupt practices and somebody was found guilty that the court would automatically void the election.
But i’m not sure if that’s even the case because it also has to be shown that the crime influenced the RESULT.
—
The Reg Bower thing doesn’t wash. He’s got a masters in accounting I think. Obviously that’s just pure cover because if anyone admits to knowingly accepting those donations that’s a serious criminal matter.
—
Fresh elections one way or another probably does end this.
First of all its fair and just from the perspective of EC and Russel. (Unless you think he needs fines/jail times which some people seem to).
PMO spin is for national consumption. I’m sure local papers and the race will lay every little bit of this out.
Finally one can see why Harper/Penashue would want a resolution. Not just the party brand damage but the fact that he was effectively paralyzed by this.
Talk about a damaged asset. An innu MP, the only MP from Newfoundland – he should have been very valuable. Yet he can’t even stand up in the House or do any announcements.
Either he fixes this with the voters or good riddance seems to be everyone’s attitude.
I still think that EC can on the basis of findings of substantial wrongdoing, either directly remove an MP, or set it in motion.
That may be some corrupted shreds of memory. But the statutes you posted are a different legal process… the question being whether the one I am thinking of exists.
Maybe Alice or someone else could weigh in on this.
The EC investigations and ultimate actions will go ahead. But my guess would be that if Penashue wins the by-election, those are only going to unseat him in combination with the 2015 election generally going against them, or some other wave going on nationally/regionally.
I agree that the PMO spinning is for the national spotlight and wont have much direct effect in the riding. But the local and national orchestration looks to be entirely initiated from the PMO.
I’m wondering why they didn’t wait until after the Budget. That’s only another week plus. Why take some of the lustre- maybe a lot- off the big showcase?
Maybe something in the case that was going to be MUCH more public this week anyway? [Like these letters or whatever they are from EC to Penashue? which were when?] Even worse: that could come out right after the Budget is tabled?
Some too clever by half plan about optimally mixing the timing with the media focus on the Budget? Sounds unlikely.
Further to my possibly very off general memory of EC removing an MP: it seems to me intent of wrongdoing by the MP is only part of the picture. And that proving it is essentially irrelevant.
Ken there’s contesting an election which a different process than being convicted for wrong doing.
If EC finds substantial wrong doing they pass that along to the prosecutor.
If convicted you’re banned from sitting in the house.
Therefore you’re removed.
Are you thinking EC has a way to remove you on their own without a court of law ruling against you ?
I can’t imagine MPs passing a law like that but i’m not expert. Let me know what you find.
Here’s the section on illegal/corrupt practices.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part19&lang=e#sec502
Note the expenses charge has the word “willfully” in it which means proving intent.
—
There’s also whole raft of other offences mentioned earlier in the act for which you can be fined or put in jail.
Proving intent is the difference between a summary conviction and an indictable offence.
Basically double fine, double prison time.
But none of them mention a ban from being a house member.
It certainly does not make sense that EC has a way of directly removing an MP, or even initiating it [except in the sense of choosing to launch an investigation and of effecting eventual prosecution].
So I don’t know what this notional memory I have is based on, or can be.
There must be a lot of legal movement around the term ‘accepting a gift’. Theoretically, that sounds like an ineligible contribution could be included.
Looking at the statutes, it looks like conviction of [willfully] accepting a gift would automatically mean an MP gets barred from office. Which intuitively does not sound practical. But practically speaking, it could translate as that much reason a defendat who is an MP would end up being convicted for something less than “accepting a gift”.
I already agreed that what goes on in the national media is not necessarily compelling in the Labrador by-election.
But I smell some significant miscalculation about how this likely will work into an accumulating narrative that harms the national brand. This is on the heels of exposure around the Senators, and dominates the national news going into the Budget, of all times.
Even in the short term of news cycles, it is at least a distraction from the Budget being the time to trumpet and consolidate the government’s premier political asset.
All this now, and the whole mess will still come out in charges and court action. If Penashue wins the by-election that will be old news in Labrador. But it will not be old news for the national brand.
Ken I agree the scandals are adding up and the polling shows Harper has taken a hit.
But people always forget. So its all about timing and clearing the deck ASAP so its all gone by 2015.
Ironically things like the senate are only news because Harper’s taken the initiative on cleaing up the place.
The upside is that after they take their bad medicine the books will be clean going forward.
And many of the scandals, ex John Duncan, are the result of a zero tolerance policy because Harper wants to avoid the ruling party rot that set in with Liberal and PC dynastys.
I guess the calculation is to take a big hit now and clean up the mess rather than sweep it under the rug and risk it festering/lingering around the 2015 election.