[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

Compared to Trudeau, he looks likes a rocket scientist.

Don't get me wrong. I always thought Trudeau was a clown and I was prepared to have some fun with him if my country hadn't elected Donald Trump, who makes Trudeau look like a rocket scientist. And while Uncle Joe has a long track record of public service his advanced age does not exactly instill smugness on my part either.

But having said that nothing about this guy makes him sound like anything but an embarrassing nut. I am unconvinced he looks great compared to Trudeau or anybody else. But hey, you are unlikely to elect any bigger nuts than we are probably going to elect. So there is that.

[Sheilbh]

Surely you can't have someone potentially becoming leader with an investigation into corruption allegations hanging over their heads?

If there are allegations of bribery that are serious and credible enough to report to the relevant authorities, then it's serious and credible enough to give an appearance of wrongdoing - which I think is enough to disqualify someone politically. It's that risk of bringing into disrepute (plus if there is something to the allegations, you're screwed).

[crazy canuck]

Whether the appearance of wrong doing is disqualifying is something for the party membership to decide when they cast their votes.  Not a matter decided by back room operatives.


If what you are saying is true, and the correct approach, then why bother with any proper administrative decision making process. Let's just make a whole bunch of allegations against people we don't like and force the party to disqualify them.

[Barrister]

I am shocked, SHOCKED!, that crazy canuck is taking the least charitable view of the Conservative Party.

Look, if the allegations are serious enough, and the evidence strong enough, it absolutely is not enough to say 'well just let the party members figure it out'.  That's how you get a Trump.

Whether the evidence here is strong enough, and the allegations serious enough - we'll see.  As I understand it the allegation is that some corporation was paying the salary of several Brown staffers during the campaign. 

Let's hear what the evidence is.

[crazy canuck]

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that an apologist for the right wing of the Conservative party would think what happened is ok.

Nice dodge throwing in that "if the evidence is strong enough".  Where is the evidence, why did the decision makers think it was strong enough? And if it is strong enough, why is there a need for further investigation?

[Jacob]

That's a fair point of view, Sheilbh.

The counter point is that the allegations appear to have been made by political opponents and been decided by political opponents without any kind of due process.

Who's to say there's any substance to these allegations? Brown's political opponents, apparently. Not the greatest look.

Maybe Brown's a sleazy operator and the CPC scrupulously maintained the highest standards. Or maybe this was a hatchet job based on vague and spurious fabrications. I guess we'll just have to trust them on this.

[Barrister]

That's a fair point of view, Sheilbh.

The counter point is that the allegations appear to have been made by political opponents and been decided by political opponents without any kind of due process.

Who's to say there's any substance to these allegations? Brown's political opponents, apparently. Not the greatest look.

Maybe Brown's a sleazy operator and the CPC scrupulously maintained the highest standards. Or maybe this was a hatchet job based on vague and spurious fabrications. I guess we'll just have to trust them on this.

My understandings is the allegations came from people within Brown's campaign.

[Jacob]

My understandings is the allegations came from people within Brown's campaign.

That'd move the needle a bit for me if true. As would evidence that Brown had enough time to correct the issue if it was an innocent mistake, in contradiction of his statements on the topic.

Maybe sufficient facts will come out to make the decision appear unequivocally correct.

[Sheilbh]

That's a fair point of view, Sheilbh.

The counter point is that the allegations appear to have been made by political opponents and been decided by political opponents without any kind of due process.

Who's to say there's any substance to these allegations? Brown's political opponents, apparently. Not the greatest look.

Maybe Brown's a sleazy operator and the CPC scrupulously maintained the highest standards. Or maybe this was a hatchet job based on vague and spurious fabrications. I guess we'll just have to trust them on this.

Yeah - I think that's fair. The key for me is that from that article it says the entire committee thought they were looking at "serious and substantiated" allegations and they gave him a chance to respond, which he didn't. Therefore they referred to the authorities. It seems to me that's about as far many organisations can go in terms of due process (it's different if you're just an employee, I suppose).

He's going for a role in public life. It seems to me that if a candidate for that type of role - judge, police chief, regulator, senior political office - is in the race and allegations are made. The organisers of the selection/competition look at them, believe they are "serious and substantiated" that they feel compelled to pass to the authorities", then at the very least they should be suspended pending investigation by the authorities. Particularly if you've declined to provide an explanation because that's the way you avoid suspension or, indeed, it going to the authorities - because there's an innocent explanation you can easily provide. In this case and others where there's a pretty hard deadline I think it's fair to disqualify them from the competition because suspension doesn't work.

If it was saying allegations were made and there were divisions in that committee over how serious or real they were then I think that would be where the decision could be questioned and wonder if it's a hatchet job. From that report everyone thought they were serious and real and decided to report them - I can see a divide on how to manage that (especially as it was meant to be confidential). But I don't think it's as easy to suspect it's a hatchet job.

Brown has said he thinks it's come from a rival campaign - but then he would say that. And if this situation was flipped I'm not sure everyone would be giving Polievre the benefit of the doubt if he was alleging a rival campaign and party backroom stitch up given views on him.

[crazy canuck]

That's a fair point of view, Sheilbh.

The counter point is that the allegations appear to have been made by political opponents and been decided by political opponents without any kind of due process.

Who's to say there's any substance to these allegations? Brown's political opponents, apparently. Not the greatest look.

Maybe Brown's a sleazy operator and the CPC scrupulously maintained the highest standards. Or maybe this was a hatchet job based on vague and spurious fabrications. I guess we'll just have to trust them on this.

Yeah - I think that's fair. The key for me is that from that article it says the entire committee thought they were looking at "serious and substantiated" allegations and they gave him a chance to respond, which he didn't. Therefore they referred to the authorities. It seems to me that's about as far many organisations can go in terms of due process (it's different if you're just an employee, I suppose).

He's going for a role in public life. It seems to me that if a candidate for that type of role - judge, police chief, regulator, senior political office - is in the race and allegations are made. The organisers of the selection/competition look at them, believe they are "serious and substantiated" that they feel compelled to pass to the authorities", then at the very least they should be suspended pending investigation by the authorities. Particularly if you've declined to provide an explanation because that's the way you avoid suspension or, indeed, it going to the authorities - because there's an innocent explanation you can easily provide. In this case and others where there's a pretty hard deadline I think it's fair to disqualify them from the competition because suspension doesn't work.

If it was saying allegations were made and there were divisions in that committee over how serious or real they were then I think that would be where the decision could be questioned and wonder if it's a hatchet job. From that report everyone thought they were serious and real and decided to report them - I can see a divide on how to manage that (especially as it was meant to be confidential). But I don't think it's as easy to suspect it's a hatchet job.

Brown has said he thinks it's come from a rival campaign - but then he would say that. And if this situation was flipped I'm not sure everyone would be giving Polievre the benefit of the doubt if he was alleging a rival campaign and party backroom stitch up given views on him.

It is frightening to me that someone accused of serious misconduct can be removed from an election to become the leader of a party based, in part, on an analysis which justifies the decision on the basis that "he would say that".  It is as if a whole generation or two have completely forgotten that procedural fairness is not just a fancy phrase.

[Sheilbh]

But not everything has the same standard of fairness or should - and I don't think there's a right to run for leader of the opposition.

From that article they got evidence, they assessed it was serious and credible and they offered him a chance to explain it. Instead he alleged deep state conspiracies.

They're not able to actually determine if it's true or not - so they handed it over to the authorities who can. Unfortunatley in this situation suspension pending an investigation isn't an option. I think it's better for them as an organisation to disqualify someone being investigated for serious misconduct who has declined to provide you with an explanation, than let them keep going as if those allegations hadn't come forward.

That's the justification - the "he would say that" point is that he's the only person in that article saying this came from an opposition campaign etc. And even if it was from an opposing campaign, if he hasn't been able to provide an explanation that satisfies the organisers of the race about allegations that they believe are serious and credible that doesn't change anything.

[Barrister]

Yeah I really don't think that procedural fairness and due process is quite the argument that CC thinks it is.

So I should say at the outset I don't know if the allegations against Brown are true.  I'm kind of assuming they mostly are, or at least there's enough evidence to seriously question Brown.  If there isn't enough evidence I think the CPC is in serous trouble in the short term.


But let's take as an example, well... the last Patrick Brown scandal.  Brown was leader of the Ontario PC Party.  An election was coming up.  There were serious and credible reports of sexual misconduct by Brown.  Brown came under intense pressure to resign as leader and he did so.  In the end Brown was never charged with any offence, he sued the media for defamation.  Brown considers himself vindicated (my own views are more nuanced).

But can you imagine if Brown went into the election with those allegations hanging over his head?  It would be disastrous for the Party (and the Ontario PCs did go on to win that election under Doug Ford).  A political party has a right to preserve it's own electoral viability even if unfair to the leader.

[Jacob]

Yeah I really don't think that procedural fairness and due process is quite the argument that CC thinks it is.

So I should say at the outset I don't know if the allegations against Brown are true.  I'm kind of assuming they mostly are, or at least there's enough evidence to seriously question Brown.  If there isn't enough evidence I think the CPC is in serous trouble in the short term.


But let's take as an example, well... the last Patrick Brown scandal.  Brown was leader of the Ontario PC Party.  An election was coming up.  There were serious and credible reports of sexual misconduct by Brown.  Brown came under intense pressure to resign as leader and he did so.  In the end Brown was never charged with any offence, he sued the media for defamation.  Brown considers himself vindicated (my own views are more nuanced).

But can you imagine if Brown went into the election with those allegations hanging over his head?  It would be disastrous for the Party (and the Ontario PCs did go on to win that election under Doug Ford).  A political party has a right to preserve it's own electoral viability even if unfair to the leader.

Yeah okay, you're kind of bringing me around.

[Barrister]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125634

Here's an interesting Law Review article about the courts ability (and limits) to interfere in internal political party processes, written by a Robson Hall law professor (and note, despite the name Gerard Kennedy he is not the former federal politician).

It notes that while the courts will interfere, it is only to ensure that parties follow their own internal rules, and not that they otherwise follow best practices, administrative law, or the Elections Act.  Essentially it's a form of contract between the candidate and the party.  It also goes on to note that the courts will show as a matter of practicality a lot of deference and reluctance to overturn an election result.

I thought it was interesting in light of Patrick Brown hiring Marie Henein and threatening to sue.  I want to point out that Ms. Henein is a very famous and well respected lawyer, but practices pretty much exclusively in criminal law.

[viper37]

The counter point is that the allegations appear to have been made by political opponents and been decided by political opponents without any kind of due process.

The counter point to that, is that your statement is unsupported by facts.

The allegations came from his camp. 
There was an inquiry made, within the limits of what the party can make.
Brown was offered to participate, he declined.
Brown was asked to provide documents, he declined.

So, what you have is staffers who are likely paid by a corporate donor, in total violation of our electoral laws.

I know, I know, this kind of things is done all the time for the NDP (unions) and the Libs.  But some parties are more honest than others.  Or fear the scrutiny more than others.

From the moment this was known and Brown refused to cooperate with the investigation, Elections Canada had to be involved.  There is nothing shady about involving Elections Canada to investigate campaign finance. Well, I think.

From this point forward, you can keep a candidate with an active investigation pending or you can suspend him.

If you keep him, it's a distraction, and your political opponents will have a field day with it: "dishonest Conservative take money from big corporations, you see were their interest are".

If you booth him, some of his fans will accuse you of shady dealings and inventing some nefarious conspiracies to silence him (look at the Canadian Conservative sub-Reddit, if you will).

I think I prefer #2.  If you can't answer simple questions about who is paying your staff, it raises serious questions of ethics.