[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

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.

The allegation is that he was aware of the payments.  That is a very different thing from proof that he was.

[Sheilbh]

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.

Probably covered some of it in public law and company law but I converted to law - we don't do any theory it's seen as basically mainly something for academics. I think here you'd only get that if you did a full legal degree. And it doesn't really come up in the stuff I do.

I've read theory since because I tend to really like theory - even did when I was doing my undergrad (while everyone else hated it ). Though I think we probably have quite different views on those issues

The allegation is that he was aware of the payments.  That is a very different thing from proof that he was.

Sure. But it's reason not to share details that could be used to unmask a whistleblower. And to take a step away from this specific case - there is an important balance to be struck between providing the information necessary for a man in power to answer allegations and protecting the anonymity of a whistleblower, at least until the authorities can have a look. Competing rights and freedoms are in play at that point.

[Jacob]

Tamara Lich got her bail denied.

[viper37]

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?

Like I said, it's very simple. 

Party interns are paid by the party.  There is not 6000 staffers working for brown.  Check all of them to make sure they are paid by the party.  There's at most a dozen likely candidates that could be in that situation, somebody close to Brown, not some volunteer organizing spaghetti financing lunch on Sundays.

If it clears, report that to the party: "To the best of my knowledge, everyone working for me was paid by the party.  If anyone was paid by a private corporation, I have no idea who it is, and I was never made aware of that fact and a more serious investigation should proceed."

Simple enough, no? With such an answer, he would still be in the race.

It is highly unlikely that someone is collecting 2 paychecks, one from the party, one from a corporation.  So, start there.  Can't find the answer, ok, you can't find it. But at least look at it.

There is no miracle involved, there is a simple phone call to whomever is doing the accounting for the party: "please look at the people working for my campaign, here goes the names".

[crazy canuck]

Viper, your post does not explain how an additional payment for expenses paid by a third party could be detected. 

Shielbh, scary reasoning.  Let's just go back to star chambers.

[HVC]

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.

Was down 14 hours. Second time in two years (last time was in April of last year).

[viper37]

Viper, your post does not explain how an additional payment for expenses paid by a third party could be detected. 

Again, fairly easy.

Expenses occured during the campaign are approved by official agents of the candidates.  So Patrick Brown has an official agent signing off on all expenses.

You submit these documents to the party, they can compare with expenses occurred in the course of the campaign.  If there are any discrepencies, he can be asked further questions, or Elections Canada can get involved.

The party will be aware of any campaign rally or any major activity being held.  Again, we're not talking something minor, like a local pizzeria that would have donated a couple of pizzas to his friend who happens to be working for Patrick Brown.  If they don't see the appropriate expense attached to the activity, it raises questions.

Again, either he can be asked further questions, or Elections Canada can get involved at any point.

It was fairly easy for Brown to submit documentations to at least try to prove he had nothing to hide.

Maybe the end result would have been the same, maybe the leadership of the party really hated him.  Maybe they are all Poilièvre supporters.  But he would have a much stronger case than now.

[Barrister]

Weird CBC article about Polievre and Brown - there university days.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/pierre-poilievre-patrick-brown-conservative-party-reform-1.6513247

The basic thesis of the article is here:

"I don't think you can understand Pierre Poilievre without understanding his background," said Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt. "You have to look at growing up in Calgary, going to the University of Calgary, taking political science in the time period that he did."

The thing is - I really don't know that it does help you understand anything.  Instead it's just a bunch of anecdotes about Poilievre and Brown's university days.

The two didn't appear to really know each other well, except that at one point Brown was head of the national PC Youth wing while Poilievre was head of the U of C campus club, and at the time he threatened to have that campus club participate in the United Alternative movement.

What I did find interesting is at one point Poilievre was in the Reform Party, but at later points he's in the PC Party.  From experience there was very very little movement from one party to the other back then.

Otherwise though, the article just has a faint aroma of wanted to associate Poilievre with a bunch of politicians and thinkers from 20 years ago, from Stockwell Day to Ted Morton.

But let me know if anyone found this actually illuminating.

[crazy canuck]

Yesterday, I was at a ceremony which celebrated the creation of the First Nations Education Authority - something Jim Prentice started about 20+ years ago as the Federal Minister.

There was a great deal of praise form the Indigenous speakers for Minister Prentice and the Federal team that worked to put the enabling legislation in place under his tenure. 

[crazy canuck]

Our Court of Appeal just released its decision on the appeal from the unsuccessful constitutional challenge to the prohibition of private health care which provides the same services as the public health system.  There is a lot in the decision to digest but one thing really stands out - the Court found no error with the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the negative impact a parallel private system would have on the public system.

[137]    The judge's conclusion that costs would increase depended on his assessment of a variety of factors. These included increased demand for unnecessary healthcare services, increased competition between the public and private sectors for a limited supply of specialized healthcare professionals, increased administrative and regulatory costs, and the potential loss of federal funding: at paras. 2402–2465.

[138]    The judge also concluded that a material increase in healthcare costs to sustain the public system could lead to service cuts in the public system. It would be difficult to predict how those cuts might be implemented and what services might be affected. Nonetheless, this conclusion illustrates potential consequences for the public system if a duplicative private system were permitted. The findings of fact underlying these conclusions were available to the judge on the evidence before him and we see no basis to intervene.

Here is the decision

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/22/02/2022BCCA0245.htm

edit: they could have quoted Spock here - the needs of the many etc.

[358] As we have said, we accept the personal interest British Columbians have in avoiding a lengthy wait when they have resources to avail themselves of private care to avoid an increased risk of death. We do not minimize the seriousness of that issue. But, we also recognize that the objective of the MPA includes ensuring that individuals without the ability to pay are not thereby deprived of medically necessary care. We repeat the judge's findings of fact that, in the absence of the impugned provisions, individuals in the public system may wait longer and may not receive the medical care they need: e.g., at paras. 2343, 2387.

[359]     If we were to conclude that some individuals who can afford to pay are the victims of a law that deprived them of their rights in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, the court would grant a veto over public health policy to a single individual, at the expense of other individuals who were deprived of their s. 7 rights. It may be that this veto should be dealt with and dissolved under s. 1, but that would not address the underlying issue. Patients who face increased risk of death because they wait beyond the benchmark but who lack the ability to pay for private care surely also have a s. 7 claim that their rights are engaged by state action that has failed to ensure that benchmark wait times are met or who face longer wait times because a private system has been permitted to emerge. To repeat, the judge concluded that if a parallel private system were allowed to emerge, individuals without means would wait longer for medically necessary or may not receive it at all.

[Barrister]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2022/07/14/anti-vax-anti-science-and-anti-reality-meet-danielle-smith-the-favourite-to-be-albertas-next-premier.html

So I've read multiple media reports suggesting that Danielle Smith is the leading contender to be the next UCP leader, and thus Alberta's next Premier.

Danielle Smith is the twice-removed leader of the Wildrose Alliance, which ultimately merged with the PC Party to form the UCP.  She resigned as leader when she crossed the floor along with half of her caucus to join the PCs, which might make you think she's a moderate.

Well she's not running like one.  Her signature campaign promise is to pass something called the Alberta Sovereignty Act, which will allow Alberta to disallow any federal legislation it wants to.  This goes back to some old ideas in Alberta (think the Alberta "Firewall" letter).  But unlike the ""firewall" letter, the Sovereignty Act is blatantly unconstitutional.  I mean it's early 1L Con law unconstitutional.

Oh and she is supporting anti-vax messages.

FFS what is happening to right-wing politics these days?

[Jacob]

FFS what is happening to right-wing politics these days?

It's being eaten by radical populists inspired by Trump

[HVC]

FFS what is happening to right-wing politics these days?

It's being eaten by radical populists inspired by Trump

Trump rode a wave, he hasn't the cause. The right wing brass thought it could feed the beast and ride it to victory, but it turned on its master.

[Jacob]

Trump rode a wave, he hasn't the cause. The right wing brass thought it could feed the beast and ride it to victory, but it turned on its master.

"Inspired by" != "causing"... so sure.

But yes, it's not a one-person show it's a full on ideological movement with elements of populism while also shaped by a number of individual and institutional actors. Those actors are also acting on Canada (i.e. Post Media is American owned by Trump loyalists).

[HVC]

Conservatism has always had a mean streak. Fire and brimstone and all that. They have (had?) A few pluses, mainly fiscal, but need a strong leader to keep the baser nature in check.