[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

except for the ban on imports, it amounts to nothing since it's already the law of the land.

As I understand it this is new.  You can no longer buy or sell handguns.  So let's say you have a handgun - you can't sell it to anyone.  You can't buy a new handgun.  You're stuck with it.

It seems buyback programs will also be mandatory.

Hopefully this time, the Liberals actually do define the terms they are using in the bill, unlike C-11.

[Josephus]

Liberal, NDP leaders quit as Ford cruises to major victory in Ontario.

[Jacob]

I haven't followed Ontario politics that closely. What do you reckon Ford's major victory is built on?

[Grey Fox]

Covid-19 pandemic status quo and apathy.

Also it seems that Ontario is stealing one from the Quebec playbook of voting in opposite direction in provincial and federal elections.

[HVC]

As far as conservatives go he hasn't been that bad. Why rock the boat during a pandemic and during an uncertain economy. That's my guess at least.

[crazy canuck]

The Globe is reporting seems to indicate two factors.  First and foremost, really really bad efforts by especially the Liberals.  Apparently all they did was fight with the other parties over who should be second.  Second, Ford basically ignored the fact that there was an election and let the other parties fight amongst themselves.

[Josephus]

I haven't followed Ontario politics that closely. What do you reckon Ford's major victory is built on?

Yeah, a lot of what GF and CC said. Mostly COVID. Ford's attitude since the start of the year has been COVID is over, let's move on, and the majority of people feel the same.

The other thing about COVID is that Ford was giving press conferences every day for two years. People knew who he was. Some sympathized with him. Like HVC who said "for a Conservative he wasn't that bad." They have short memories. He was really fucking things up, before COVID got in the way.

My mom was going to vote Conservative but I used a guilt trip to change her mind. "You know mom, if he didn't open things up so early in the spring of 2021, your youngest son may not have been put into the ICU with COVID.Ford almost killed your son. " I think that swayed her.


Also, there were no major campaign points. Ford was, let's get back to what I was doing before this COVID nonsense started. The NDP was ...health care, health care, health care. And the Liberals. well to my next point:

I have, in my 40 years in Canada, yet to see a Liberal leader as poor as whatshisname. He had no vision, no agenda, and was invisible. I can't even remember his name. As for the NDP. Well...NDP. No one outside urban areas would vote NDP.

At least my Oshawa riding held onto its NDP candidate...barely.

And apathy. No one really cared one way or the other.

[Jacob]

Thanks.

[crazy canuck]

Andrew Coyne demonstrates the reason in one graph

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1532806161216462850?s=21&t=58k1fGkUtPwIhQZFLWwTig

[viper37]

He had no vision, no agenda,

That's generally the LPC's modus operandi.  We are the natural governing party of Canada.  Vote for us if you're Canadian

[viper37]

Found this on Reddit.  Made me smile: 

[viper37]

Quebec's lawyers are demanding answers about the secret trial held in one of Quebec's court.
Lawyers ask Quebec court of appeal to shed more light on secret trial

The judge is still being kept secret, even from the Judge in chief of Quebec's Superior court.
The Federal prosecutors were supposed to testify remotely, with their face hidden, but they decided at the last minute it was too great a risk to be identified.

MONTREAL — Lawyers for the province's attorney general, the chief justice of the Quebec court and several media organizations went before the Quebec Court of Appeal Monday to demand details about a secret trial for which there's no publicly available record.

The existence of the trial only became public earlier this year because a police informant accused in the case appealed his or her conviction, and the appeals court issued a heavily redacted ruling in February critical of the lower court proceedings. The Court of Appeal has criticized the trial for being conducted in a way "contrary to the fundamental principles" of the country's justice system.

Christian Leblanc, a lawyer for media organizations — including The Canadian Press — told the Court of Appeal that legal proceedings must be conducted in public.

"The very confidence of the public in its legal system depends on justice being rendered publicly," Leblanc said following Monday's hearing.

Most details in the original case are sealed and being kept from the public, including the nature of the alleged crime and where it allegedly took place, the name of the police force involved and the names of the lawyers. As well, the original case had no official docket number.

"We recognize that we must protect a police informant," Leblanc said. "That said, once we say that, we have to draw the line at where that protection ends, and we certainly think it's not a total in-camera hearing."

The police informant involved in the case was convicted of participating in a crime that he or she had initially revealed to police. The informant claimed he or she was a victim of an abuse of process, but the lower court judge disagreed. The Appeal Court panel, however, sided with the informant and stayed the conviction and the legal proceedings.

Leblanc told the panel of three justices on Monday that in his 25 years of practising law, he had never heard of a case being held entirely in camera. He also questioned how the information could be identified if basic information about the trial is revealed. The wide-ranging seal, Leblanc said, may be "exaggerated."

"That's why I told the Court of Appeal that for us, these are clues, little hints that maybe the sealing order is too wide here and maybe we should have a debate so that the court can hear both sides ... and review its decision," Leblanc said.

Pierre-Luc Beauchesne, a lawyer representing the attorney general, told the court his office had not been made aware of a request to stay the lower court decision, which is customary for cases that are appealed. He said his office wants the information to create a court file, noting that keeping a record of a case is not optional.

The hearing on Monday was heard in two parts. Part 1 included public arguments with the lawyers representing the attorney general, Quebec court Chief Justice Lucie Rondeau and several media organizations. Part 2 included lawyers representing the informant as well as the lawyer for Rondeau, who is also seeking further details about the case.

Monday's hearing was held before Court of Appeal justices Marie-France Bich, Martin Vauclair and Patrick Healy, the same three justices who rendered the heavily redacted ruling critical of the lower court proceedings. The Court of Appeal ruling was from February and released in March.

In their decision, the appeals court judges wrote that "no trace of this trial exists, other than in the minds of the individuals implicated."

The court said at the time that it is "of the opinion that if trials must protect certain information disclosed therein, a procedure as secret as the present one is absolutely contrary to modern criminal law and to the respect of the constitutional rights not only of the accused, but also of the media, and it is equally incompatible with the values of a liberal democracy."

The same panel of judges will render a decision at a later date after deliberations.

[crazy canuck]

The story is a bit confusing.  It is hard to tell what is actually happening.  For example, it is hard to imagine that the Chief Justice does not know what is happening in their own court.  The reporter likely got that bit confused.  As for the rest, it appears to be an issue now of getting the record of what occurred below for the purposes of the appeal(s) that are now before the court.  But it is hard to tell as the reporter is mainly concentrated on the previous proceedings.

It will be interesting reading when the Court of Appeal renders its decision.  Our Court of Appeal has made it very clear that applications for sealing orders should be heavily scrutinized by the court before they are granted, and it is not something the parties can agree to do by consent.  The reason is, as the reporter did accurately report, it is antithetical to the principles of liberal democracy to have the courts function in secret.

[viper37]

The story is a bit confusing.  It is hard to tell what is actually happening.  For example, it is hard to imagine that the Chief Justice does not know what is happening in their own court.  The reporter likely got that bit confused.  As for the rest, it appears to be an issue now of getting the record of what occurred below for the purposes of the appeal(s) that are now before the court.  But it is hard to tell as the reporter is mainly concentrated on the previous proceedings.

It will be interesting reading when the Court of Appeal renders its decision.  Our Court of Appeal has made it very clear that applications for sealing orders should be heavily scrutinized by the court before they are granted, and it is not something the parties can agree to do by consent.  The reason is, as the reporter did accurately report, it is antithetical to the principles of liberal democracy to have the courts function in secret.

That first part is factual: The chief justice had no idea what happened and his demands for information remained unanswered as no one has come forward.  It has been widely discussed in Quebec's medias.

It was a Federal case involving at least one Quebec citizen.  We know that much because he has filed an appeal.

The judge is secret, the prosecutors involved are secret, so is the defense lawyer.  The name of the accused is obviously secret.  The location of the original trial is also secret.

[Oexmelin]

As Viper said, the main issue is precisely the previous proceedings, because there are no traces of them. No docket number, no transcription, no archive, except "in the memory of those who participated in it" - some of whom were presumably heard by the Court of Appeals. The presiding judge, or judges, are unknown. The district is unknown. The chief justice as well as the Minister of Justice, have asked to repeal secrecy surrounding the appeal, so that the circumstances surrounding the original, secret trial, become known.