[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Alberta also signs on for the Federal Liberals supposed $10 / day childcare program.  Kenney was opposed to this, but the lure of free money was just too strong.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ottawa-alberta-reach-child-care-deal-1.6248936

I still think that even if they do eventually get some $10 / day child care spaces available, it'll be for only a small amount of children overall.

[Grey Fox]

Alberta also signs on for the Federal Liberals supposed $10 / day childcare program.  Kenney was opposed to this, but the lure of free money was just too strong.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ottawa-alberta-reach-child-care-deal-1.6248936

I still think that even if they do eventually get some $10 / day child care spaces available, it'll be for only a small amount of children overall.

It has to be an average so yes.

[Barrister]

Conservative Senator launches petition for leadership review of O'Toole.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-senator-oust-erin-otoole-1.6249440

[Jacob]

I still think that even if they do eventually get some $10 / day child care spaces available, it'll be for only a small amount of children overall.

What's benchmark would you consider a reasonable level of success for the program, compared to it being another Liberal all flash and no substance policy?

[Barrister]

I still think that even if they do eventually get some $10 / day child care spaces available, it'll be for only a small amount of children overall.

What's benchmark would you consider a reasonable level of success for the program, compared to it being another Liberal all flash and no substance policy?

Well here's the thing - the Liberals should be compared to the promises they make.  They've promised that child care costs should average $10/day (which seems ridiculous - if $10 is the average that means some are even lower).

If they said "look we're going to add 15,000 child care spaces in Alberta" that's a meaningful and measureable promise that could be delivered.  But it's not "transformative" enough, so instead they promise the $10 / average.

[viper37]

I was under the impression that as soon as the Crown was caught not transmitting evidence to the defence team, judges were siding very favorably to the accused.

I've linked a translated piece from Radio-Canada here.

Short version: A man is accused of killing 4 people during the night, 2 drug dealers and their girlfriends.  Police nailed him in less than one week, based on a delator's testimony that he breakfasted with him the next morning and he told him he did it.

Three times over did the defence team of the accused received evidence that wasn't transmitted at the time of trial, evidence discarded by the police, some of which place him elsewhere during this supposed conversation (phone records, witness, etc).

But these 3 times, his appeal was rejected.

And that is something I don't understand...

Link to translate article

[Jacob]

Conservative Senator launches petition for leadership review of O'Toole.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-senator-oust-erin-otoole-1.6249440

"Mr. O'Toole flip-flopped on policies core to our party within the same week, the same day, and even within the same sentence. The members didn't have a say on that, but we must have one on his leadership," Batters said in a media statement.

"We can't afford to see our party ripped apart again. When we're divided, the Liberals win."

I mean, I get that "true blue" Conservatives feel that their point of view wasn't respected sufficiently and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with a leadership review after failing to take government after an election*. But it's a bit rich to challenge the current leader so that your faction can gain the upper hand while claiming it's in the service of unity.

*on whether it's a good time to review O'Toole:

- I think a "True Blue" Conservative direction is going to make Conservative victory less likely but also less desirable, so from my POV that's a wash.

- Continual leadership fights are reminiscent of the Liberal years in the wildernes when Harper was in gov't. Maybe it's better to pick a leader and build, or maybe it's better to keep getting new ones until you hit on someone who has what it takes (or the government wears out its welcome). Is Canada ready for a CCP Trudeau-equivalent?

[Barrister]

I was under the impression that as soon as the Crown was caught not transmitting evidence to the defence team, judges were siding very favorably to the accused.

I've linked a translated piece from Radio-Canada here.

Short version: A man is accused of killing 4 people during the night, 2 drug dealers and their girlfriends.  Police nailed him in less than one week, based on a delator's testimony that he breakfasted with him the next morning and he told him he did it.

Three times over did the defence team of the accused received evidence that wasn't transmitted at the time of trial, evidence discarded by the police, some of which place him elsewhere during this supposed conversation (phone records, witness, etc).

But these 3 times, his appeal was rejected.

And that is something I don't understand...

Link to translate article

Okay, so here goes my best...

So disclosure was only a constitutional right in 1991 in a case called R v Stinchcombe.  This was a 1992 murder with the trial in 1994.  Standards for disclosure weren't as rigorously followed back then.

Just because you're not given disclosure doesn't mean you're automatically acquitted, far from it.  Lets say you discover on the day of your trial the Crown hasn't disclosed something.  Your remedy is not an acquittal, but an adjournment so you can get the item requested.  It's only if the Crown refuses to disclose something that a judge would typically issue a stay of proceedings.

So it's not that he wasn't given disclosure - it's what is in that missing disclosure.  And remember this is post-trial.  It's not just enough for the evidence to raise a reasonable doubt - now you have to have significant evidence showing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.  And I guess the justice minister doesn't think that threshold has been met.

Oh - and polygraph machines are garbage.

[Barrister]

I mean, I get that "true blue" Conservatives feel that their point of view wasn't respected sufficiently and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with a leadership review after failing to take government after an election*. But it's a bit rich to challenge the current leader so that your faction can gain the upper hand while claiming it's in the service of unity.

*on whether it's a good time to review O'Toole:

- I think a "True Blue" Conservative direction is going to make Conservative victory less likely but also less desirable, so from my POV that's a wash.

- Continual leadership fights are reminiscent of the Liberal years in the wildernes when Harper was in gov't. Maybe it's better to pick a leader and build, or maybe it's better to keep getting new ones until you hit on someone who has what it takes (or the government wears out its welcome). Is Canada ready for a CCP Trudeau-equivalent?

So the Conservatives were noticeably hurt in the election because of defections to Bernier's PPC.  So the party is vulnerable to the right and can't take those voters for granted.  Those voters cost the Conservatives several seats - maybe not enough to win, but the result would have been much closer.

I think three policy areas were identified: abortion, guns and the carbon tax.  I think supporting a carbon tax was the right decision and something Conservatives are going to have to grow to accept.  Abortion is an evergreen issue that will never die.  But his flip-flop on guns was egregious - he had to know he'd be attacked on the issue, but had nothing ready and changed the platform after it came out.

I think Harper showed you may need to show a softer side, but don't necessarily have softer policies - the Conservatives were much further right under Harper than they were under Mulroney.

[viper37]

So it's not that he wasn't given disclosure - it's what is in that missing disclosure.  And remember this is post-trial.  It's not just enough for the evidence to raise a reasonable doubt - now you have to have significant evidence showing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.  And I guess the justice minister doesn't think that threshold has been met.

Well, it's post trial because he did not have access to the material at his trial.  I wasn't expecting an acquittal, but more along the line of ordering a new trial with the evidence that wasn't presented so he could provide a complete defense.  I can understand the first time, even the second, but by the 3rd time some information hasn't been passed along to the defense, it would have raised an eyebrow. 

And the investigation concluded in under a week also raises suspicions on the work of the police at the time.

But I didn't know it became a Constitutional right only in '91.  I thought it'd been like this since 1867.


EDIT:

I have in mind another case, a very recent one, where the defense was provided with copies of documents because the originals were seized by Revenu Québec for its own investigation.  Defense requested the original documents, judge agreed, the Crown could not produce the original documents in time, the accused was acquitted.  It seems there are different standards here, which I'm having trouble understanding.

Oh - and polygraph machines are garbage.

While I tend to agree with you, I'm curious as to why.  Any case in mind where they gave misdirection to police?

[HVC]

i don't think they're ever been proven to actually work, at least beyond a point that's acceptable for court.

[viper37]

i don't think they're ever been proven to actually work, at least beyond a point that's acceptable for court.

I've heard they were allowed as evidence in civil trials, like insurance claims/fraud, but not in criminal trial.

I don't trust them, because they can be cheated, with practice, but defenders tend to be pretty adamant it's close to 100% reliable.

[Barrister]

So not really a political issue, but probably only of interest to Canadians (and Canada watchers).

There's been some extensive flooding in BC the last few days.  While I felt badly for the people impacted, I didn't give it much more thought.

But then I saw this:

https://edmontonsun.com/news/local-news/supply-chain-woes-from-b-c-flooding-to-reverberate-in-alberta/

Basically the BC lower mainland is cut off from the rest of Canada right now.  All highways and railways are shut down.  The problem is that it means the Port of Vancouver, North America's 4th largest, is also shut off from the rest of the country.  And that's the one where all our trade with China comes through.

So  the supply chain issues we've already been struggling with are going to get much, much worse.

[Grey Fox]

Well, shit.

[Jacob]

Oh yeah, it's pretty bad. One of my wife's colleagues was stuck on the highway for 6-7 hours trying to come back from the interior. In the end she had to turn back to Peachland actually (hello local languishites) where they've been stuck since then. They reported getting the last jug of milk in the grocery store yesterday.

Hopefully we can ship things in from further East or via the US.

Also, containers are piling up in port since they can't be shipped further East for the time being. This could potentially impact Christmas shopping and/ or inflation.

Climate-change driven disasters are going to become more and more frequent. Our governments - federal, provincial, and local - need to get better planning and process in place. Because this is going to happen again.