I’m a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and have an office in downtown Toronto.  I’m also a member of the Criminal Lawyer’s Association (CLA), which is an Ontario criminal lawyer organization.  Right now, we are having an election for the various positions on the executive.

I’d like to make a couple things perfectly clear.  First of all, I’m doing this completely on my own.  None of the candidates has asked me to do it, and I have absolutely no official role within the CLA.  I’m just a member (for now, ha-ha).  Secondly, I’m only dealing only with information that is already in the public sphere.  100% of the analysis here is based on what the candidates themselves have publicly disclosed.  I’m also going to be focusing on the concept of “transparency,” discussed below.

So first of all, lets take a look at the candidates.  All the candidates have been publicly listed here: http://claelection.ca/all-candidates/  I’m only dealing with the contested positions, not the ones that have already been acclaimed.  The contests are as follows:

President (1):  Anthony Moustacalis and Sean Robichaud

Vice Presidents (3):

Adam Boni
Tom Bryson
Boris Bytensky
Breese Davies
Michael Lacy
Brendan Neil
Jordan Weisz

Woman’s VP (1): Keli Mersereau and Jenny Reid

Assistant Secretary (1) Sid Freeman and Apple Newton-Smith

Toronto Director (8):

Margaret Bojanowska
Sam Boutzouvis
Daniel Brown
Peter Copeland
Dean Embry
Andrew Furgiuele
Victor Giourgas
David North
Royland Moriah
Anita Szigeti
Lori Anne Thomas
Adam Weisberg
Seth Weinstein
Kathryn Wells

Women’s Director (1): Jessyca Greenwood and Melanie Webb

Recent Call (Regional)(1): Tyler Botten and Simon Borys

Helpfully, both of the Presidential Candidates have publicly disclosed their positions on the internet.  Good work guys!

Mr. Moustacalis’ campaign was publicly disclosed here:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/seeking-re-election-president-criminal-lawyers-anthony-moustacalis

Mr. Robichaud’s platform was publicly disclosed here:

https://robichaudlaw.ca/criminal-lawyers-association-president/

Let’s start with Sean.  Sean advises that his “vision” is that the executive and board “[work] with transparency and inclusivity with our members”  Later, he writes that he would like to achieve:

“Complete transparency on voting, voting records, attendance, and the ability of members to attend virtually, or otherwise, board meetings if they so desire.”

Ok, that obviously sounds pretty good.  I think the plain meaning of that is:

a.  He’s going to tell you how the CLA board members vote on a given issue

b.  He’s going to tell you who comes to the meetings

c.  He’s going to let the membership “attend” (or probably “watch”) the actual meetings if they want to.  The word “virtually,” to me, suggests some kind of video feed or internet thing.

Who can argue with that?  Not me.

Now lets check out Mr. Moustacalis.  Hmm, doesn’t seem to deal with this issue at all.  Probably just an oversight.  I’m sure he’ll clarify that point right away.

Those are the only publicly available campaign platforms that I’m aware of.  If any of the candidates think I’ve got that wrong, or want to send me a link, I’ll update this entry accordingly.  I am totally cool with providing any links that I am sent or become aware of.

Update #1:  Brendan Neil.  Running for VP.  Here is his platform: http://www.brendanneil.com/.

Quote:  “I also support a transparent organization where members’ questions and issues are addressed in an open and honest manner. I support a public record of board voting and believe that we can create a system to better allow members to follow the meetings.”

Comment:  I think I know where this guy stands on transparency.  Thanks for clarifying that, Brendan!

Update #2:  Jordan Weisz.  Running for VP.  Here is his platform:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-am-running-vice-president-criminals-lawyers-cla-jordan-weisz?trk=prof-post

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-possible-cla-jordan-weisz?trk=prof-post

Quote1:  “Of particular concern is the lack of transparency and accountability of our board and executive. Our members have a right to know how their elected representatives vote. We should consider changes to the process by which motions are brought to the board for consideration so non-executive representatives and members are better able to participate.”

Quote#2: “For starters we can work upon transparency so the members are informed as to governance (including Board meetings) and participate in this governance.”

Comment:  I quoted Jordan twice because there were two (2) relevant quotes.  Obviously, if any of the candidates add to their platforms, or modify them, they just have to give me a shout.  Jordan also seemed pretty clear.  Thanks Jordan!

Update #3. Anita Szigeti.  Running for Toronto Director.  Here is her platform:

About

On “Transparency”

Quote:

1.  Attendance:  I support readily available data on who has attended meetings.  Based on the Minutes of Meeting available to me for 16 regularly scheduled Board meetings from November 2013 to June of 2015, I have conducted an informal audit of attendance.  Always assuming the “regrets” section of the Minutes is accurate, the track record of Board members in terms of attendance leaves much room for improvement.  44% of Board members missed more than 30% of the meetings (at least 5 of 16) and more than 30% of members missed more than 38% of meetings (at least 6 of 16).  Full Board meetings are not an onerous obligation; most are held by phone for 1 to 1.5 hours at most monthly, with summers off.  I didn’t miss any.  I read all the materials – it takes perhaps an hour or so of additional time.  Granted, there are Committee meetings and emergency or special meetings of the Board and the Executive perhaps hold their own meeting from time to time, plus there are ad-hoc Committees, so it does add up.  That being said, I see no excuse for nearly half the Board’s 39 members to fail to attend nearly a third of 16 Board meetings in a two year term.

2.   Voting Record:  I support, and always have advocated for (initially believing this was the case,) keeping records of how each of us votes at Board meetings on motions (unless in camera.)  Very little of the business of the Association must be kept confidential – those few issues which fall into this category are discussed in camera and the results of those votes may have to be kept confidential as well, including who brought what motion forward – this is understandable.)  Otherwise, issues generally affect the membership and Board members should be able to justify their position to the membership who elected them.   The Board is a regionally representative structure – we are supposed to consult with our constituents and vote in accordance with their wishes, in their interest as we understand their position.  They have the right to know if we in fact did that.  How else do they determine whether they should re-elect incumbents?

3.     Record of or Attendance at Board meetings:  If members have sufficient interest in attending in person Board meetings perhaps via webcast, I certainly would not oppose that.   Most of our meetings are by phone.  If there is a mechanism to allow members to listen to those calls, I support that.  Given what I now understand may be fiscal constraints, if the most reasonable approach is to record Board meetings and make the recording available to members in a members-only section of our website or on demand, I support that.  I would certainly support putting this issue on the agenda at the next meeting to debate the pros and cons of each proposed avenue to permit transparency of our meetings.   But while the mechanism may be up for debate, I don’t think the imperative of transparency of our work on behalf of the Association should or may be compromised.  Minimally, a record should be kept.  I don’t think the knowledge that a record will be kept will interfere with the tenor or flavour or candour of the meetings.  Indeed, it may well have the side-benefit of making us more focused and tempered in our tone, which would only help.

Comment:  Good Heavens!  Anita has made an entire page devoted to transparency.  You go girl!  And did you notice how her glasses (red) matched her outfit?  Personally, I like that attention to detail.  Thank you for clarifying your position on this issue, Anita.

Update #4:  Sid Freeman.  Running for Assistant Secretary.  I don’t have a link to his platform, but have received permission to publish the following:

Accountability: I believe that the CLA Executive and Board members are elected to represent and advance your interests. This includes attendance at board meetings, participation in committees, reporting to members what has been done on their behalf, and being accountable for votes made on issues before the board. This level of transparency is necessary for members to make voting decisions based on information rather than popularity or name recognition. If re-elected, I will bring a motion to ensure members receive this information.

Comment:  Good work, Sid!  Makes sense to me.  Sid has more issues he wants to get across, but I’m focusing here on accountability.  If he gives me a link to his larger platform, I’ll put it up.

TRIGGER WARNING:  I’m going to talk about the National Energy Program.  I realize that this was only 30 years ago, so the wounds that we Albertans feel are still pretty raw.  However, while some of you may well say “Too Soon, man, too soon,”  I’m going to press on.  You’ve been warned.

Canada is currently engaged in a federal election, and many people (read: “me”) don’t want to vote for Harper.  So, as a practical matter, I’m assuming that the reader has basically decided that Harper is a dick, and you’re trying to decide between Mr. Mulcair or Mr. Trudeau.  I’m also assuming that you live in Western Canada.

Both Mr. Mulcair and Trudeau can make credible claims to being progressive candidates.  Both have stated economic policy pieces, and both have expressed a commitment to the environment.

However, from an Alberta perspective, one of the main differences is that Justin has expressly stated that he will not use environmental policy as an excuse to disproportionately tax Western Canada.  From his book, Common Grounds, p. 275, line 16:

“I made a commitment that day in Alberta that a Liberal Party led by me would never use western resource wealth to buy eastern votes.”

If you get the book, he deals with this issue extensively from p. 275 – 277.  I’ve reviewed Mr. Mulcair’s book, Strength of Conviction, and there is no similar statement.  Indeed, Mr. Mulcair has been evasive on this exact issue, refusing to give a direct answer (presumably for good reason, as his “base” is now in Quebec).

All Albertans should treat this issue seriously, but especially progressives.  We like civil liberties, and we don’t like it when The Harper Government ™ starts doing a hatchet job on them.  On the other hand, we’ve had many, many eastern politicians attempt to use Western Canada as a cash cow, knowing full well that there are few votes here, especially in rural Alberta.  Mr. Layton and Mr. Dion were very clear on these points, and they showed up in both their stump speeches and written policies.  When you hear things like “we’re going to tax the tar sands” (in Alberta) to create “green jobs” (for all of Canada), you are essentially stating that you will unilaterally and randomly damage Western Canada’s economy.

You can be very, very progressive, and just hate Harper a whole bunch, but nobody is down for that crap.  This is why many progressives in Alberta, in the past, voted for Steve.  I don’t claim to be well versed in the hard sciences, but I’m relatively certain that whatever the solution is, there is no “scientific” reason to move money out of the West.  For example, if you need to impose a tax, that revenue could remain in Alberta for Alberta infrastructure or public services.  Or, you could just give it back to the provincial treasury.

Mr. Trudeau has also been very, very clear on how he plans on funding his policy initiatives.  Essentially, he is going to lower the tax rates on “the middle-class,” and raise them on the top earners.  You can agree or disagree with this, but it is both plausible and clear.  And (most importantly), because it is from income tax, it applies all across Canada.  Mr. Trudeau’s plan will affect BC, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and everywhere else exactly the same.  Again, Mr. Mulcair has refused to deal with this issue.

Mr. Trudeau’s book also gives you some perspective on the guy, and I found it favorable.  While a lot of people tend to focus on his dad (Trudeau1), it turns out that he also had a mother, Margaret.  Who knew?  Not me.  Margaret had really strong ties to Western Canada, specifically B.C., to the point that her father was also a well known retail politician.  However, Justin’s grandfather was more of the “glad-handing-hail-fellow-well-met” kind of politician.  I’m about the same age as Justin, so I only have vague memories of Trudeau1, but by all accounts he was quite cerebral and probably more than a little authoritarian (perhaps even Harper-esque).

I think it’s safe to say that Justin has more of the mother than the father in him.  After finishing grade school, in what had to have been a pretty bizarre upbringing (i.e. having a famous father), he goes and gets a liberal arts degree in Eastern Canada.  Then, he heads out west to (essentially) be a ski-bum and bouncer in Whistler.  Later, he gets a teaching certificate, and teaches for several years in the lower mainland.  Then it’s back east again, for marriage and politics.

There’s no doubt this guy was born rich, but I’m not sure I would have traded places with him.  In fact, there were parts of the book I could sort of identify with.  Let’s face, the ski-bum-drifter thing is a right of passage in many parts of Western Canada, especially for those of us with a liberal arts background.  Further, I think it’s pretty safe to say that this guy got a FREAKING EARFUL about the NEP during his stay here (“Oh, your dad was PET?  That guy is an asshole!”)

It amazes me how strong this sentiment still is in some parts of Alberta, especially rural Alberta.  I travel quite a bit for work, and so I’ll be talking to people about how they plan on voting, and many people still “remember” the NEP and Trudeau1.

I’ve got to ask myself, how fair is this really?  What if someone “hated” me because of something they “remembered” my dad doing 30 years ago?  Not cool, says I, and I think I’d like to extend Mr. Trudeau the same courtesy.

Justin Trudeau has GONE OUT OF HIS WAY to say he’s not going to repeat the mistakes of his father, in a way no other politician has.  He’s dealt with this issue point blank, in writing and in his stump speeches.  He stood, in Calgary, in the petroleum club and said it.  He’s got strong ties to Western Canada, and seems to “get” this issue.

And that’s good enough for me.

I’m an Albertan voting for a Liberal named Trudeau, and you should too.

This is an interesting article from the Calgary Herald.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/economic-withholding-goes-under-the-microscope-after-spring-power-price-spike

Essentially, it suggests that an unnamed power producer in Alberta consciously withheld electrical supply in order to increase the spot price.  The price apparently quadrupled in April.  It will be recalled that, in April, Alberta is becoming warmer, so one would expect demand to be less.  The article suggests that such a practice was legal under the rules brought in by the former Provincial Tories.

While many people (correctly) associate Enron with its eventual accounting scandal, I think an analogy can be drawn to its effect on the California energy crisis of the early 2000s.  Mz. McLean and Mr. Elkind in their book “The Smartest Guys in the Room,” outline this in Ch 17, “Gaming California.”  Very broadly, they suggest that several energy companies, including Enron, consciously manipulated the deregulated market to increase the price of power, in some cases jumping from $1.00 per megawatt hour to as much as $5,000.00 (see McLean, p. 267).

They argue that using complex trading strategies with names like “Death Star” and “Fat Man,” Enron was able to manipulate the market.  At p. 273, they write:

“To [the California regulators and politicians], the problem was simple:  the big power companies, including Enron, were manipulating the market for their own benefit.  And state officials wanted the federal government to do something about it.  San Diego Gas & Electric filed a complaint with the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission], requesting lower price caps.  On August 10 the [Independent Systems Operator] issued a report, blaming the crisis on the exercise of market power;  on August 17, representatives from the California utilities presented a detailed list of alleged trading abuses to the FERC, including the intentional creation of congestion and ‘megawatt laundering…'”

See also, Power Failure by Mz. Swartz and Watkins, Ch. 14 “Flakes and Cowboys.”

The Calgary Herald article does not name the producer in question.  If it is a publicly held company, it would be interesting to review its financials.

This is my first attempt at a blog, so I trust that the reader will bear with me.  I’m a Canadian Lawyer, and (for now) will be writing mainly about politics, the economy and (to a lesser extent) law.  For the next month or so, I’m going to be dealing with election issues.

In the interests of Full, Fair and Frank disclosure, I’ll also state that I have (more or less) decided to vote for Mr. Trudeau (*spits at mention*).

On fiscal and monetary policy, I’m generally a pretty right-of-center person, although I don’t naturally self-identify as either Keynesian or Neo-Liberal.  Notwithstanding this,  I’ve basically decided to not vote for Mr. Harper this time out.  Very broadly, I think Mr. Harper has made some positive policy decisions over the past ten years.  Notably, he got ride of the Canadian Wheat Board, got ride of the gun registry and generally left provincial matters to the provinces.  Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that we are currently in a recession, I think his management of the economy has basically been sound (this is actually somewhat debatable, but I think a fair generalization).

Having said that, why would I not vote for him?  This article makes the point well:

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/08/31/opinion/harpers-war-law

I’ll be expanding on these points in later posts, but the short version is that Mr. Harper has been BRUTAL on the issue of civil liberties.  I don’t think this gets a lot of play in the mainstream media, but over the past 10 years this guy has done a total hatchet job on basic due process, immigration and many of our core civil liberties.

Quoting from the article:

“Canada doesn’t have an activist court at war with the prime minister.

It has a prime minister who is at war with the law.”

This really is it in a nutshell, and (amazingly) the examples given in the article aren’t even the worst thing I could think of.  Time and time again, over the past 10 years, I’ve seen massive “Omnibus” bills with Orwellian names like the “Protecting Freedom While Putting Scumbags In Jail Act” (I am paraphrasing).  It’s as if he read “1984” as nothing more than a fucking “How-To” manual.

For example, I recall distinctly, sitting in court several years ago while a very young lawyer plead a client guilty to some non-violent drug offences.  This isn’t a common part of my practice, but I instinctively “knew” that it should be a non-custodial sentence.  The client was an elderly, female, newcomer Canadian, with limited English, who had come from a relatively “high conflict” part of the world.  She had no criminal record.  The crown and defence offered the sentencing judge a joint submission for a federal sentence.  A “federal sentence” means it’s two (2) years, and a “joint submission” means that the crown and the defence are  basically asking for the same thing.  As a practical matter, judges almost always follow joint submissions, unless they are completely from mars.

I’d known the judge in question for over 15 years, and had appeared in front of him many times.  I knew that he was very experienced and well versed in the law.  Before he was called to the bench, he was universally regarded as one of the “top” lawyers in our area of Canada.

Basically, I assumed that he was going to reject the joint submission, because it was too high, and it looked like the (very) young defence lawyer had made a mistake.  This particular judge also generally doesn’t suffer fools lightly, especially the defence bar, so I also thought that there would be a great deal of entertainment value.

I was wrong.  The judge in question, correctly, noted the recent amendment to the relevant section of the Criminal Code, noted that this was the lowest sentence possible, and followed the joint submission.  And the little old immigrant lady went through the door to prison 10 seconds later, having never harmed a person in her life.

This is something that is often lost in “tough on crime” rhetoric.  When the general public thinks of “violent criminals,” they often rely on the images found in movies and TV, which deal with sensational murders and rapes. As understandable as this is, it is far removed from reality.  While thoughtful people can disagree that (say) a murderer should get 20, 25, 30 years, or even life, these are not the laws that Mr. Harper has (for the most part) targeted.

Using the example above, Mr. Harper has (essentially) used criminal law to limit judicial discretion.  He doesn’t trust the bench to make these kinds of decisions, which is exactly why we have a bench in the first place.  Judges exist, in part, to say things like “Hey, why are we putting this elderly women in jail for years for a non-violent offence?  WTF?” (again, paraphrasing).

As such, I shan’t be voting Tory this time out.  And I don’t care what tax bracket you’re in, you shouldn’t either.

This is a test post. It is only a test. Had this been an actual post, I wouldn’t be using the word “test” so much. That’s how you know it’s a test (also because I told you several times). This is only a test