[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

[about the signs]

Well, I think tearing down signs is a less complicated operation than setting up a mass phoning operation. Like I said, it's far from impossible that it was one guy, it's just more dedicated and organized than I'd expect from someone doing someone acting alone out of misguided fervour.

That said, if I were to construct a scenario where it was just one bad egg (or apple?) doing it it would be something like the guy was already in charge of setting up/ managing phone operations chatting with some other dude who happened to have a list of likely non-Conservative voters and having a conversation that went something like:

"We have to convince these guys to vote for us."
"They're not going to. Look at the demographics... those are hardcore NDP (or Liberal) voters."
"Well then this list isn't any use to us."
"I guess, other than don't waste our resources on them."

You know, just shooting the shit over a drink or something. And then Mr. Bad Apple thought to himself that it wouldn't be that hard to confuse some of those people using the set-up he already was using. All he needed to do is to change a few things so it can't be traced back to him and he's off to the races.

In that case, I can imagine it happening in a way where it really is just one guy without anyone more senior involved. What I had a hard time wrapping my head around was someone doing it independently from scratch.

This we agree on.  I find this conduct unacceptable on a number of levels.  I want to know what happened.

[Jacob]

Well... no.  That's not what I said.

An investigation should happen.  It just should not happen in public.  Which is what the police actually do every single day.  They don't announce what is happening in an investigation until charges ae laid.

An investigation should happen, and the results should be made public. The public has a right to know if the Conservative party used anti-democratic methods in the election, and conversely, the Conservative party has the right to have its name cleared if it did not.

Now, the investigation itself should be conducted as professionally as possible, without turning it into a media circus; but ultimately the facts should come to light.

[Jacob]

Today in the Vancouver Sun: more than 31000 complaints about robocalls: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Robocalls+scandal+Elections+Canada+flooded+with+complaints/6240564/story.html

[Oexmelin]

Did I miss the part where there was any evidence the Conservatives actually did this?

Yes, considering current Conservative tactics, it is much more likely to be Election Canada 

[viper37]

Far too much has been made of "in and out".

It's a dispute between accountants.

the first time, yes.  Once it's been ruled as illegal though, I'd expect the Conservatives not to do it again.

It's here in French:
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/344016/un-autre-in-and-out-au-quebec
It happenned in Rimouski and in Chicoutimi.  The local candidates where asked to pay for a 15 000,01$ bill to RMG.  In both cases, the candidate and the official agent claimed they did not receive any kind of services for this.  They got the money to pay for it, and they paid the bill.

One of these candidates later retracted his statement in writing.  He claimed twice on TV&radio it was "in and out", yet, later on he retracted himself saying they did polling for his riding... But nothing from the official agents...  It's weird.

[crazy canuck]

Did I miss the part where there was any evidence the Conservatives actually did this?

Yes, considering current Conservative tactics, it is much more likely to be Election Canada 

[crazy canuck]

Far too much has been made of "in and out".

It's a dispute between accountants.

the first time, yes.  Once it's been ruled as illegal though, I'd expect the Conservatives not to do it again.

I thought that ruling was under appeal and then a settlement was reached prior to hearing?

[viper37]

Far too much has been made of "in and out".

It's a dispute between accountants.

the first time, yes.  Once it's been ruled as illegal though, I'd expect the Conservatives not to do it again.

I thought that ruling was under appeal and then a settlement was reached prior to hearing?

French text
They pleaded guilty to violating the spending limits.  Charges against the individual members of the party were dropped.

[Jacob]

Well that answers my earlier question:

Ned Frank, a constitutional expert from Queen's University in Kingston, Ont... If Elections Canada finds the calls were illegal, it would then have to determine whether the calls swayed the outcome of the voting in affected ridings, he said.

"What they can do, and it's a judgment call . . . is to declare the election null and void and call a byelection," Franks said.

So Elections Canada can call a by election if they find the outcome was significantly affected by the robocalls in question, at least if Ned Frank's constitutional expertise is accurate.

But it looks like they want to proceed the Barrister way:

"If someone is representing themselves to be Elections Canada, giving false information, changing the polls, and the purpose is to confuse electors to the extent that you're attempting to discourage them from voting, then that is against the statute, in my view," said Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Canada's chief electoral officer from 1990 to 2007.

"This is not small potatoes because what you are trying to do is interfere with the right of Canadians to vote and that is a constitutional right in Canada."

Enright said Elections Canada will provide a report to Parliament "in due course" on its investigation, but did not provide a specific timeline for disclosure. However, Enright said the decision to release investigation findings will be based on three considerations that are in the public interest:

- The need to protect the presumption of innocence and privacy;

- The need for the Office of the Commissioner to carry out its compliance and enforcement responsibilities in a manner that is consistent, effective, impartial and in conformity with applicable law;

- And the need to maintain public confidence in the fairness of an electoral process carried out in accordance with the Canada Elections Act.

"The Commissioner of Canada Elections has the authority, during periods of high volume, to contract additional resources or call upon other law enforcement agencies, such as the RCMP, to lend assistance and expertise," Enright said.

"Like all law enforcement bodies, the Office of the Commissioner generally does not confirm or deny the existence of a complaint or referral, nor does the commissioner disclose information on the investigations or reviews that he conducts."

From here: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Robocalls+scandal+Elections+Canada+flooded+with+complaints/6240564/story.html

[Jacob]

Tories schedule an abortion debate in parliament: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/House+Commons+hold+abortion+related+debate+April/6296017/story.html

Exciting times.

[Grey Fox]

Tories schedule an abortion debate in parliament: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/House+Commons+hold+abortion+related+debate+April/6296017/story.html

Exciting times.

Who's next? What about giving personhood to sperm. I think that's untouched subject so far.

[Barrister]

Tories schedule an abortion debate in parliament: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/House+Commons+hold+abortion+related+debate+April/6296017/story.html

Exciting times.

It's a private member's bill.

You know it's a shame that the issue is so political, as we really do need some sort of abortion law.  Right now we have absolutely nothing.

[HVC]

Tories schedule an abortion debate in parliament: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/House+Commons+hold+abortion+related+debate+April/6296017/story.html

Exciting times.

It's a private member's bill.

You know it's a shame that the issue is so political, as we really do need some sort of abortion law.  Right now we have absolutely nothing.

Isn't what makes "english law" great is that it survives on tradition and implied practices rather then always hard coded laws?

[Barrister]

Tories schedule an abortion debate in parliament: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/House+Commons+hold+abortion+related+debate+April/6296017/story.html

Exciting times.

It's a private member's bill.

You know it's a shame that the issue is so political, as we really do need some sort of abortion law.  Right now we have absolutely nothing.

Isn't what makes "english law" great is that it survives on tradition and implied practices rather then always hard coded laws?

Until something gets codified.  Which is what happened.

Then when the SCC struck down the existing abortion law nothing was left.

[HVC]

But there wasn't a spat of 8.9 month old abortions, was there? Did anything really change? Serious question. What's different now from before?