CBC is reporting this as fact, not an allegation - it's safe to assume that they know exactly who these campaign workers are.
There are also decent reasons not to name them just yet - if they're low-level staffers, it's worth trying to get a comment from the Party first, and/or try to determine how far up the ladder this goes. No sense in scapegoating the grunts until the higher-ups are ID'd.
On Friday night, in two Ottawa bars, campaign workers shared how the party was behind this move — how two Liberal Party staffers attended the conference intended for conservatives and placed these buttons in areas where attendees would find them.
One of those conversations was in the immediate earshot of this journalist. A Conservative source overheard the other conversation.
Great, it just became easier to dismiss legitimate criticism of the Conservatives as a false-flag operation.
Brilliant move.
Among the legal organizations’ expressed objections and flaws they contend mar the proposed regime in its application to legal professionals:
- IRCC’s proposed broad powers to inspect and search, based on an IRCC officer’s determination that there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” a violation, and to demand documents from lawyers, without safeguards, as well as the lack of any mechanism to allow lawyers to fully and effectively defend themselves, without breaching established principles of solicitor-client confidentiality;
- unfairness, expense and other negative impacts on legal professionals, and the risk of inconsistent results by needlessly subjecting them to dual regulation;
- failure to respect the fundamental principles of independence of the bar as well as solicitor/client privilege/confidentiality, which are protected by the common law and the Constitution;
- the lack of procedural protections and accountability;
- IRCC’s lack of neutrality vis-à-vis immigration and refugee lawyers who advocate for clients, often in opposition to IRCC and its counsel, including representing in court those accused of offences, including misrepresentation. “Granting the same entity the authority to discipline the very lawyers who challenge it creates a glaring conflict of interest — comparable to allowing Crown counsel to oversee the discipline of criminal defence lawyers,” the CBA asserts in its submission to IRCC; and
- Ottawa exceeds federal jurisdiction by purporting to regulate and penalize lawyers and paralegals doing paid immigration and refugee work, including by naming violators and publishing particulars on IRCC’s website, an interference with a lawyer’s ability to practise law, which is the exclusive preserve of law societies.
The Captain America comics have gotten some good mileage out of that theme over the years - what do you do when the ideals you supposedly represent no longer reflect the actual nation?
If done thoughtfully, it can be an asset, rather than a liability.
As much as I agree that one doesn't "run for Prime Minister," and I wish everyone would stop using that phrasing...the party sure as shit should be running to form government.
The article is annoyingly vague, but I guess it's talking about actual, boots-on-the-ground spies, and the infrastructure to manage foreign agents?
And with that, I think Singh's goose is officially cooked.
You don't run an election campaign on supporting another party. You run it on the assertion that you deserve to win.
The headline I posted was the headline at the time - the other verdicts hadn't come in yet.
This will probably be the only remotely positive thing I'll have to say about the CPC during this campaign, but good for them for taking out the trash.
And yeah, there's still a lot of trash left.
I know it was technically the lower bid, but I had high hopes for the Loblaws offer.
Is it safe to say that casual use of the notwithstanding clause has been normalized to the point that there are no real consequences to invoking it any more?