[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Yeah, exactly-matter referred to an appropriate body for investigation and decision.  In the meantime a kangaroo court ousts him?  The Conservatives have just demonstrated they cannot be trusted.

See what Sheilb wrote.  I am in total agreement.

[Barrister]

Here's more details about the allegations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7rtZkwJUD8

(CBC news report)

[crazy canuck]

So we now know what happened.

An allegation is brought to the party that a volunteer had their expenses paid by a business.  That would be a violation of campaign funding rules.  Expenses must be paid directly by the campaign organization.

The allegation was also made that Brown knew.  This is the critical part which, if true, would give an arguable basis for removal.

The party tells Brown that the allegation was made but critically does not tell him the identity of the alleged business or the identity of the campaign worker who allegedly was paid by the business.  Brown is asked to respond to this vague allegation.

Brown does not respond to the party's satisfaction and is disqualified.

Shielbh, under Canadian law we do not all have different standard of fairness.  What happened is a textbook case of a process which is procedurally unfair.  It would be impossible for any accused to respond meaningfully to an allegation that is that vague.

What makes this process worse is the whistleblower has now gone public.  So keeps her identity secret by the party is less defensible.

[crazy canuck]

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.

So, as I responded to your very first post, all that is required is an allegation that is serious enough, but may not be true, to knock anybody out of a political race by vote in a back room of political operatives, many of whom support another candidate.

Just think about that and apply the legal training you must have received regarding the need for procedural fairness.

[Jacob]

If the process went:

Committee: "A business is paying for one or more of your staffers and that's against the rules, you have to fix it."

Brown: "Okay. I have no idea who the business or person is. Can you give me more details so I can fix it."

Committee: "No."

Brown: "Well then I can't fix it."

Committee: "You're out!"

Then that seems off base.

Conversely, if Brown did have enough details to fix it - or there's evidence that he knew exactly what was going on but was playing games about it - then it doesn't seem so bad.

[crazy canuck]

If the process went:

Committee: "A business is paying for one or more of your staffers and that's against the rules, you have to fix it."

Brown: "Okay. I have no idea who the business or person is. Can you give me more details so I can fix it."

Committee: "No."

Brown: "Well then I can't fix it."

Committee: "You're out!"

Then that seems off base.

Conversely, if Brown did have enough details to fix it - or there's evidence that he knew exactly what was going on but was playing games about it - then it doesn't seem so bad.

From all the reports we have right now, it was the former not the latter - which is the point I have been making all along 

To put it into context, what if the Board Chair of your company came to you and told you there is an allegation that someone in your division received an improper payment from a third party and that person says you know about it - prove it didn't happen.  Where would you start if you did not know who they were talking about?

[Barrister]

So apparently all Rogers internet service is down across the country.  Rogers controls about 1/3 of the market for wireless.  And when I say down it is completely down.  I see Twitter reports about Ontario remote courts being completely down.  This is also affecting debit and credit card transactions.

Wild.  How can a company let its service go just completely down like this for hours and hours?

My cell phone is not with Rogers so I'm not primarily affected, but still.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, things like taxi credit card machines are being hit - there was a run on atms to get cash, but a lot of those were down too...

[viper37]

Where would you start if you did not know who they were talking about?

It's very simple, actually.

Campaign staffer are supposed to be paid by the campaign (party) for the work they do.  Jacob can be a video game designer and paid by his company for his work.  But he can't be paid by his company when he is going to work for the NDP, otherwise it's an illegal contribution.

It's very easy to verify.

If he's a volunteer for party, he's not receving any salary from the party and he's supposed to be working when off duty from his main job.  If he starts showing up at all hours of days and evening, having weeks of 50+hrs work for the NDP while he keeps saying he's working, for say, Electronic Arts, that would suspicious.

Now, if he is working for the party, but currently not being paid for by the party but receiving a salary by EIDOS, it's again very easy to verify: why isn't his name in the books?  Why doesn't he get any pay slips from the political party?

So, if I'm a division manager and such accusation are laid, I will participate.  I will ask for more details.  I will investigate on my side, make sure first that everyone is being paid by the company while they work for the company.  If I get more details from the organization, I will push further, question the person implicated by the allegations.

What I will not do is claim this is a vast conspiracy by my opponents and refuse to cooperate.

Now, let's be serious.  Political staffers that will be paid by an external organization as a way to gain favour with the candidate or the party is illegal.  But it happens.  It's a favourite tactict of the unions.  Big corporations generally preferred to ask their employees to give money to the political party and they would then refund them.

The Conservatives happen to be more zealous on this than the Libs and the NDP, and they couldn't just ignore it.

Brown knew of the allegations, refused to participate, Elections Canada was made aware so they would investigate.

From there, either you keep in with the scandal looming (worst solution) or you boot him out immediatly (least worst solution).

Elections Canada will likely render a verdict sometime in october or november, if not next year.  Can't wait that long.

Brown was offered a chance, he didn't take it, prefering his own conspiracy theory.

I know you guys like him because he promised to be the next Justin Trudeau, hyper centralizing Federal government, anti-Quebec stance and all, but he's just a bad candidate.

[crazy canuck]

You are a miracle worker if you can easily identify a payment from a company you do not know to a person working in a nation wide campaign who has not been identified.

The payment is not running through your organization, so how could you possibly identify what they are talking about?

[Sheilbh]

So, as I responded to your very first post, all that is required is an allegation that is serious enough, but may not be true, to knock anybody out of a political race by vote in a back room of political operatives, many of whom support another candidate.

Serious and credible enough - yes. Just in the same way that if there's serious and credible allegations against a person a back room of HR operatives should suspend that person pending an investigation.

As I say there's a hard deadline here that means suspension isn't an option. But I think you're looking at serious allegations of bribery - or as BB says, sexual harassment - and you think they're credible enough to report to the authorities then I think it's defensible to suspend or, if that's not possible, disqualify a candidate. The alternative to me seems to be saying we don't take those allegations seriously.

Especially if, as I understand is the case here, the story shouldn't actually come out and should be handled confidentially because you're giving the voters incomplete information. You know these allegations exist, they don't (I think if I was working for the party I'd probably say it's justified to leak it).

And for context, from the story I've read, he was aware of the payments:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-former-patrick-brown-campaign-organizer-says-she-is-the-whistleblower/

Just think about that and apply the legal training you must have received regarding the need for procedural fairness.

I don't think we ever covered it - maybe something in shareholder disputes.

Not everything is a judicial or quasi-judicial process - this isn't and doesn't have that standard. They have a right to a fair hearing and a fair process but that means in line with the party's rulebook (and if they've any sense it'll say something along the lines of able to disqualify if there's a risk a candidate could bring the party into disrepute) - it's a private organisation. From the articles I've read here and that piece I've linked I've not seen anything - apart from his lawyer's letter - that suggests that it was unfair.

[Barrister]

Not everything is a judicial or quasi-judicial process - this isn't and doesn't have that standard. They have a right to a fair hearing and a fair process but that means in line with the party's rulebook (and if they've any sense it'll say something along the lines of able to disqualify if there's a risk a candidate could bring the party into disrepute) - it's a private organisation. From the articles I've read here and that piece I've linked I've not seen anything - apart from his lawyer's letter - that suggests that it was unfair.

The ability of the courts to intervene are limited to determining whether or not the CPC followed it's own procedures and rules.  That's it.  Which only has a passing familiarity with "procedural fairness".

I don't know what to think of this one.  Having a corporation pay someone's salary while they're working on the campaign is against the rules.  I also assume it happens all the time, so I'm not sure it warrants expelling the candidate.  But I also think Brown is way out of line saying that it's all an orchestrated attack to remove him - everything I've read showed Brown had very little chance at winning this race.

I've also been reading some twitter commentary on the whistleblower - basically quoting her in the past saying positive things about PP.  PP's been a prominent Conservative MP for several years, and the whistleblower has been long-incolved in the CPC, so frankly it would be odd if she hadn't said positive things about PP in social media.  It doesn't mean she was some kind of double agent.

[Jacob]

From what I can see it's definitely possible that the CPC did its best in a difficult situation. It's also possible that this was an underhanded stitch-up. I don't think we can know at this point, though we can of course assume one way or the other.

[Sheilbh]

From what I can see it's definitely possible that the CPC did its best in a difficult situation. It's also possible that this was an underhanded stitch-up. I don't think we can know at this point, though we can of course assume one way or the other.

Fair.

I'd just add on CC's point about the lack of information - from the article I read he was aware of the payments, who they came from and who they were paying for. Given that the campaign workers was the whistleblower it seems to me that it would be difficult to reveal much without accidentally identifying the whistleblower.

[crazy canuck]

So, as I responded to your very first post, all that is required is an allegation that is serious enough, but may not be true, to knock anybody out of a political race by vote in a back room of political operatives, many of whom support another candidate.

Serious and credible enough - yes. Just in the same way that if there's serious and credible allegations against a person a back room of HR operatives should suspend that person pending an investigation.

As I say there's a hard deadline here that means suspension isn't an option. But I think you're looking at serious allegations of bribery - or as BB says, sexual harassment - and you think they're credible enough to report to the authorities then I think it's defensible to suspend or, if that's not possible, disqualify a candidate. The alternative to me seems to be saying we don't take those allegations seriously.

Especially if, as I understand is the case here, the story shouldn't actually come out and should be handled confidentially because you're giving the voters incomplete information. You know these allegations exist, they don't (I think if I was working for the party I'd probably say it's justified to leak it).

And for context, from the story I've read, he was aware of the payments:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-former-patrick-brown-campaign-organizer-says-she-is-the-whistleblower/

Just think about that and apply the legal training you must have received regarding the need for procedural fairness.

I don't think we ever covered it - maybe something in shareholder disputes.

Not everything is a judicial or quasi-judicial process - this isn't and doesn't have that standard. They have a right to a fair hearing and a fair process but that means in line with the party's rulebook (and if they've any sense it'll say something along the lines of able to disqualify if there's a risk a candidate could bring the party into disrepute) - it's a private organisation. From the articles I've read here and that piece I've linked I've not seen anything - apart from his lawyer's letter - that suggests that it was unfair.

Are you serious - you didn't learn about procedural fairness in law school?

I am not sure if you are joking or not.  If it is not a joke, then that readily explains your posts.